At 08:04 AM 8/21/97 -0400, Tony Mione wrote:
I have a couple of questions and comments about the draft:
1) Was there a technical reason for the new packet length format.
Limiting packets larger than 8383 bytes to powers of two seems a bit
restrictive. Also, if that scheme is left in place, you should describe how
padding is done and how to find the end of useful data.
I described this incompletely. I'll put the full description in the next
release.
2) It is not clear whether this document is supersceding or
supplementing RFC1991. The introduction suggests it is supplementing.
This document is superceding RFC1991. I plan on rewriting all parts of
RFC1991 that need updating, correcting, etc.
3) I also agree with earlier comments on the list that all currently
supported packet types should be fully documented, not just 'some of the
more interesting packet types'.
I agree completely. As charming as this phrase is, it is one of the phrases
from RFC1991 that need to be drabbed-down.
4) It would be really helpful to use ascii-character box diagrams to
illustrate the CTB, packet length, and the assorted packet layouts (ala
older
IP/TCP RFCs). They look kind of old and crufty but can clear up a great
deal
of confusion when done correctly.
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll look at it.
Jon
-----
Jon Callas jon(_at_)pgp(_dot_)com
Chief Scientist 555 Twin Dolphin Drive
Pretty Good Privacy, Inc. Suite 570
(415) 596-1960 Redwood Shores, CA 94065