Subject: RE: [Seamoby] (virtual) hum on CARD open issues

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:54:51 -0400

Participating in the online humming ;-)

I support the meeting consensus to keep the S-bit. 

Reducing air bandwidth usage still ranks higher in my priority than processing overhead, 
in particular since we don't quite have an understanding as to how many capabilities we might 
have in the future. 

Further, keeping the S-bit for now also allows to still go for the "lifetime=0 equals static
capability" later, deprecating the S-bit usage (having it in the structure does not really hurt),
when progressing with the experimental draft.

Dirk

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 10:45 AM
>To: 'Pat R. Calhoun'; [email-masked]
>Subject: RE: [Seamoby] (virtual) hum on CARD open issues
>
>
>4. Issue #5: Static vs. dynamic capability attributes. The 
>editor recommends that we keep the S-bit and use the 32-bit 
>lifetime only when really required for dynamic capabilities. 
>This saves bandwidth, but does complicate processing. Meeting 
>consensus is to keep S-bit.
>
>AJOY-> We need WG consensus about this issue. So far Vijay has 
>suggested us to drop the "S" bit but we have not heard from 
>other members of the WG.  Should we drop the "S" bit or keep 
>it? Please send your comments.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Seamoby mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
>

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