Re: [802.21] [FW: connection bet. action ID and TLV type value]
Kenichi/Mac,
In terms of implementation, I've heard a lot of people saying that they
feel this way is much clearer and less confusing and not hard to code at
all. I think all of this is a just a matter of personal preference for
individual programmers.
The only technical difference is that the previous approach allows 256
number space for parameters for the entire protocol and the new approach
allows 256 number space for parameters for each message.
regards,
-Qiaobing
Kenichi Taniuchi wrote:
> 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 -----
>>>
>