Subject: [Seamoby] [CARD Technical Issue]Static v.s. dynamic attributes

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 14:46:29 -0700

Section 5.1.4 specifies a flag to indicate whether an attribute is static or
dynamic. How about using a lifetime of zero to indicate this? No real
lifetime is going to be advertised as zero, and this allows the AVP code to
take up a byte, and the lifetime field is always there, making the message
easier to process.

            jak

_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby

---

From: "Eunsoo Shim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 09:14:27 -0400

Initially 32 bits were assigned for the lifetime field in the AVP format.
But we realized that many attributes would be static and the 32 bits would
be waste of bandwidth for those attributes. If the CARD reply contains 10
static attributes, the waste becomes 320 bits.
So, for bandwidth efficiency, we made the lifetime field as optional. Since
the value format depends on each attribute type, having the lifetime field
as a part of the value field does not seem to add much complexity to the
implementation.

Anyway there is tradeoff between bandwidth efficiency and additional
complexity of the implementation. What do others think?

Eunsoo

---

From: Marco Liebsch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:47:02 +0200

I agree that gain in dropping the lifetime field when describing
static capability parameters is significant and worth looking at
a specific flag to optimize the message and avoid redundancy.
I don't think that setting and processing of the "S"-flag (static)
in capability AVPs introduces additional complexity, neither
in the protocol description, nor from implementation point of view.

marco 

Eunsoo Shim wrote:

>>Section 5.1.4 specifies a flag to indicate whether an attribute is static
>>    
>>
>or
>  
>
>>lifetime is going to be advertised as zero, and this allows the AVP code
>>    
>>
>to
>  
>