Subject: [mobile-ip] Length field definitions - rfc3115

From: Sebastian Thalanany <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 11:03:18 -0600

Hello Gopal,
              The Length field definitions for the Mobile IP
Vendor/Organization specific extensions, namely, the CVSE and the NVSE
perhaps require clarifications. Here is the text for the definitions for
the Length field for the CVSE and the NVSE elements:

1. CVSE

        Length         Length in bytes of the Value(data) field within
this extension.  It does NOT include the bytes associated with the
Type, Length and the Reserved fields.

2. NVSE

        Length         Length in bytes of the Value(data) field within
this extension.  It does NOT include the bytes associated with the
Type, Length and the Reserved fields.

or

        Length        Length in bytes of the Value(data) field within
this extension. It does NOT include the bytes associated with the  Type,
Length fields. The Length field MUST be set to 2 plus the length of the
Value(data) field, where the additional two octets are required to
include the length of the Reserved field.

        Please clarify the Length field definition for the NVSE, from
among the two possible definitions suggested above, so that the text in
the 3GPP2 text can be updated appropriately for the usage of the Length
field associated with the NVSE. The suggested definitions above, for the
CVSE and the NVSE, are based on the recently published RFC3220, section
1.9. There is no ambiguity with regard to the existing definition for
the Length field associated with the CVSE in the RFC3115. Perhaps the
references to RFC2002 would be replaced with references to RFC3220.

        Thanks.

Regards,
    Sebastian

---

From: kleung <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 09:42:15 -0800

Hi Sebastian.  Good pt.

1. CVSE

        Length         Length in bytes of  this extension, not including
the
              Type, Reserved, and Length fields.

2. NVSE

   Length     Length in bytes of this extension, not including the Type
              and Length bytes.

Is this sufficient?  This description is used by other RFCs and drafts
as
well.  Though the text you provided is more descriptive.  But the
Value(data) would have to be explained further for clarity too.

Kent

Sebastian Thalanany wrote:

> perhaps require clarifications. Here is the text for the definitions
> for the Length field for the CVSE and the NVSE elements:
>
> 1. CVSE
>
> Type, Length fields. The Length field MUST be set to 2 plus the length
> of the Value(data) field, where the additional two octets are required
> to include the length of the Reserved field.
>
> among the two possible definitions suggested above, so that the text
> in the 3GPP2 text can be updated appropriately for the usage of the
> Length field associated with the NVSE. The suggested definitions
> above, for the CVSE and the NVSE, are based on the recently published
> RFC3220, section 1.9. There is no ambiguity with regard to the
> existing definition for the Length field associated with the CVSE in
> the RFC3115. Perhaps the references to RFC2002 would be replaced with
> references to RFC3220.
>
>         Thanks.
>
> Regards,
>     Sebastian
>

--
     |           |                   Kent Leung
    :|:         :|:                  IOS Development
   :|||:       :|||:                 Voice: 408.526.5030
  :|||||||:   :|||||||:              Email: [email-masked]
.:|||||||||:.:|||||||||:.            URL  : http://wwwin-mobileip:8000
 c i s c o S y s t e m s             "Enabling the mobile wireless age!"

---

From: Sebastian Thalanany <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 14:34:16 -0600

Hello Kent,
                      Since rfc3115 is based on rfc2002, which was obsoleted
last month by rfc3220, it would perhaps be preferrable to update rfc3115
with the general format specification for a skippable extension(NVSE) as
specified in rfc3220. If the intent of the "Reserved" field is to extend the
Type field, as indicated in section 1.10 and 1.11 of rfc3220, or for some
other purpose, then perhaps the following definitions for a CVSE element and
an NVSE element may avoid ambiguities in interpretation:

1. CVSE

2. NVSE

 or

        For the NVSE, please confirm one of the two proposed definitions.

        Thanks.

Regards,
   Sebastian

---

From: kleung <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 22:21:27 -0800

Sebastian Thalanany wrote:

> Hello Kent,
>                       Since rfc3115 is based on rfc2002, which was
> obsoleted last month by rfc3220, it would perhaps be preferrable to
> update rfc3115 with the general format specification for a skippable
> extension(NVSE) as specified in rfc3220. If the intent of the
> "Reserved" field is to extend the Type field, as indicated in section
> 1.10 and 1.11 of rfc3220, or for some other purpose, then perhaps the
> following definitions for a CVSE element and an NVSE element may avoid
> ambiguities in interpretation:
>
> 1. CVSE

Not this.

>  to include the length of the Reserved field.

This one.  Length is always what follows that field in the
extension.  This is consistent with 1.9, 1.10 and 1.11.

Thanks.

Kent

---

From: Sebastian Thalanany <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 15:41:21 -0600

Hello Kent,
                      Thanks for the confirmation.

Regards,
   Sebastian