From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wei Yongjun Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:18:47 +0000 Subject: Re: QUESTION : Feature length about the non-negotiable feature Message-Id: <485A0857.1050508@cn.fujitsu.com> List-Id: References: <48579530.4010807@cn.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <48579530.4010807@cn.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: dccp@vger.kernel.org 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.