Re: [802.21] [FW: connection bet. action ID and TLV type value]
I also support static value of type.
Dinamic value of type increases implementation cost,
debuging cost and confusions. I don't see any benefit for using
it so far.
Kenichi
Meylemans, Marc wrote:
> Personally I would prefer seeing 'static' TLV types assigned to these
> parameters, so that these TLV type values do not change when used with
> the same parameters but in different messages.
> I would think that this makes implementation more straightforward...
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Marc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miriam Tauil [mailto:miriam@RESEARCH.TELCORDIA.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:11 PM
> To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802.21] [FW: connection bet. action ID and TLV type value]
>
> I'm referring to the message parameters. The same parameter in different
> messages can have a different TLV type.
>
> I hope this clarifies my question.
> Thanks
>
> Miriam
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Qiaobing Xie [mailto:Qiaobing.Xie@MOTOROLA.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:37 PM
> To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802.21] [FW: connection bet. action ID and TLV type value]
>
> Hello Miriam,
>
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I was wondering if anybody can point me to the comment resolution or
>> contribution that led to the change in assignment of the different TLV
>>
> type
>
>> values. I would be interested to look into the considerations for this
>> change.
>>
>
> Which TLV values are you referring to here (we have IE types, message
> parameter types, etc.)?
>
> regards,
> -Qiaobing
>
>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Miriam
>>
>>
>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>