Re: QUESTION : Feature length about the non-negotiable feature

[Wei Yongjun <yjwei@cn.fujitsu.com>]

Gerrit Renker wrote:
>>> Thus, although the RFC says otherwise, I think that using the smallest
>>> option size for a given value is the right thing to do.
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> Yes, you can save some space for store more data, but this break the  
>> compatibility. If the other system implement follow the RFC, since those  
>> feature will be treat as invalid value. Also if it is set as mandatory  
>> option, assoc will be reset. endpoint with different implement can not  
>> talk to each other. That is the problem.
>>
>>     
> After your email yesterday I checked the RFC and found it indeed uses
> fixed lengths. I have therefore updated the code so that the NN options
> have the described fixed lengths (Ack Ratio = 2, Sequence Window = 6).
>
> This has been tested, I will post the changelog for the test tree
> shortly and upload the amended tree. I would be grateful if you could
> give this a spin with your test cases.
>
>   

With the patch, it is OK for send non-negotiable features. But not valid 
for check invalid value when recv.