Subject: [Mip6] [issue31] Comment by Sam Hartman

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:09:45 +0000

New submission from Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>:

ANSI C does not guarantee strict alignment of structs.  You can design
a struct that can hold all the fields of a packet, but you cannot
design a struct that if viewed as a buffer will represent a packet.  I
have included a review in the tracker that describes at least one case
where the structs in the draft do not actually align to wire formats.

The draft appears to believe that the structs do correspond to wire formats in
two places.  First, section 4 seems to imply that you can receive the mobility
header using a raw socket and use the structs in section 2.

Secondly, the description of section 2 claims that the structs do
correspond to wire formats.

At a minimum, the API needs to clarify the assumptions it makes.  In
addition, the document needs to clearly indicate which functions from
the advanced API return structs from section 2 and which functions
return bits from the wire.

----------
category: Editorial
draft: draft-ietf-mip6-mipext-advapi
messages: 97
nosy: bpatil
priority: Should fix
status: No discussion
title: Comment by Sam Hartman

_________________________________________________
Mip6 issue tracker <[email-masked]>
<http://www.mip4.org/issues/tracker/mip6/issue31>
_________________________________________________

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6