Subject: [issue74] Protocol comment

From: Ellen M Deleganes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 18:16:29 +0000

New submission from Ellen M Deleganes <[email-masked]>:

In cases where fields are ignored, it should be more explicit which side 
(sender or recipient) ignores the field. Also, most protocols that I've seen 
require the recipient to ignore the field (receiver MUST ignore), and the 
Sender MUST set the field to zero. (HW engineers want to have a fixed value, 
even if the other side ignores the field.)

----------
category: Technical
draft: draft-ietf-forces-protocol
messages: 375
nosy: ellen
priority: Should fix
status: No discussion
title: Protocol comment

___________________________________________________
Forces issue tracker <[email-masked]>
<http://www.mip4.org/issues/tracker/forces/issue74>
___________________________________________________

---

From: Weiming Wang <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 22:19:17 +0800

Hi Ellen,

Thanks for pointing out this.  It seems also a prominent question, for David
mentioned this either (issue68).  My view is it may provide more freedom if we
define it as the sender can ignore it.  For instance for Query message, the
sender will always want a response, therefore, the coder may be more incline to
set the ACK flag to 'AlwaysACK'.  If we define Sender MUST set the ignored field
to zero, the just mentioned case will then have to be treated as an message
error by the receiver.

I hope other protocol authors can give some comments on this, and we decide it
quickly, then I can update the text accordingly.

Thanks,
Weiming

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ellen M Deleganes" <[email-masked]>