Subject: header inconsistancy

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 15:18:04 -0700 (PDT)

In coding the current spec, I discovered that
there's an inconsistancy in the header. Namely,
the diagram shows the next payload as a short, but
the description shows it as a char. Since the
payloads all use a char next payload, I propose
that we fix this by changing the header around a
bit:

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |   Type        | MjVer | MnVer |            Length             |
 +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
 |                  Domain of Interpretation  (DOI)              |
 +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
 |                          Transaction ID   (XID)               |
 +---------------+---------------+-+-----------------------------+
 |    CksumLen   |   NextPayload |A|       Reserved              |
 +---------------+---------------+-+-----------------------------+
 |                                                               |
 ~                           Cksum                               ~
 |                                                               |
 +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
 |                                                               |
 ~            A series of payloads                               ~
 |                                                               |
 +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+

Note that NextPayload is where "flags" was before, and the ACKREQ
bit has just been moved to the top bit. I also just made the
rest of the bits reserved which actually reclaims another 7 bits.

I've put this into the soon-to-be-issued -01 draft
unless there's strong sentiment against this...

	       Mike

---

From: Matthew Hur <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 21:23:51 -0700

This sounds ok, but why did you remove the flags field?  It looks like you 
left the ACKREQ bit - why not just leave it as part of flags?

--Matt

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 08:57:54 -0700 (PDT)

> left the ACKREQ bit - why not just leave it as part of flags?

   None of the other flags were being used, so it seemed better
   to just consolidate all the reserved bits into one lump for
   future use. 

	       Mike