Vernon Schryver writes:
> > I also said there are no known
> > implementations that do this, and the point of it at all is rather
> > obscure and almost completely without merit on non-terminal fragments.
>
> You say "rather obscure and almost completely without merit on
> non-terminal fragments." That is an effusive recommendation compared
> to what I think about it. My views about it are more negative than
> "completely without merit."
Fair enough. I agree with you and I don't think padding really makes
any sense at all. Making SDP Historic (along with the bits you
mentioned) might be a helpful move.
But _if_ for some reason you really _must_ do it, then you can't just
pad MP fragments arbitrarily, so the advice in the RFC was correct, if
somewhat (or completely) misleading.
--
James Carlson, KISS Network <james.d.carlson@xxxxxxx>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext
|
