Subject: RE: an SPD syntax example

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:36:50 +0200

> Tero Kivinen writes:
> 
> Stephen Kent writes:
> > Comments welcome, other than those arguing for use of 
> another syntax :-)
> > 
> > SPD ::= SEQUENCE of SPDEntry
> > 
> > SPDEntry ::= SET OF SelectorSet
> > 
> > SelectorSet ::= SEQUENCE {
> > 	sourceAddr	AddrList,
> > 	destAddr	AddrList,
> 
> Why are these AddrList types? Why not simply AddrOrList, or actually
> even better remove AddrList, AddrOrList, IPaddr and change this to
> IPRange, and add comment to IPRange saying that if start == end then
> it is single address (==IPaddr). As this is explaining the minimal
> SPD, I think it should really be minimal, and it should not do
> optimizations where we save 4/16 bytes by not expressing IPaddr as
> IPRange constructs, or by having less SelectorSets by allowing each
> list have list of ranges, instead of having multiple SelectorSets each
> having one range. The bad thing is that now we have two different ways
> to express same thing:
> 

What about the SCTP support? IPrange is not enough if
the implementation supports SCTP.

BR,
Juha Ollila