Subject: RE: draft response #80 - Vendor specific extensions

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 18:53:03 +0300

> -----Original Message-----
> From: EXT Joachim Buerkle [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 14 August, 1999 6:27 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: draft of draft-ietf-gsmp-msf-response-00.txt

> >>Requirement #80:       The SCI shall provide a standard 
> mechanism for inclusion of
> vendor-proprietary extensions
> >>GSMPv3 compliance:     

> PS. requirement believed to be 
> partially supported. GSMP
> today allows proprietary extensions in the end of the 
> message, that is, everything
> after the last "GSMP message field" is considered as 
> proprietary. There is a question
> on whether this is enough or whether an extra bit field that 
> flags for additional
> information such as records, objects or TLV's should be included.
> 
> Q: If this is not enough can we then reserve a message type 
> for proprietary
> solutions?

While this is possible, and a company could certainly decide to use a
mechanism such as the ARM support for such proprietary additions, it also
seem to me, that many vendor specific additions might pertain to many of the
command types.    It would be unfortunate to force a vendor to define a new
command for every command they wanted to add a few parameters to.
Therefore, the thoughts about formalizing the use of the fields that come
after the standard commands.

a.

-----------------------------------
avri doria
+1 617 678 9402