On 30 August 2014 15:18, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > -------- > In message < > CACweHNBe5o7_tmTXGqhRBGBAZPoDVJHKToGm7ARee4oqURupfw@mail.gmail.com> > , Matthew Kerwin writes: > > >I'm much less keen on reducing the size of frame_type field, because that > >would limit my ability to play with my toys^H^H^H^Hextensions[2][3]. > > There's a word for protocols which need 256 frame types: "Wrong". > > It only *needs* the ten or so it has. I'll rephrase: I'm much less keen on reducing the size of frame_type field to 4 bits; I don't believe we need 256 types, but 16 is too restrictive, and personally I don't want to go introducing a non-nibble-aligned chunk into the header without good cause. Thus, I round up to 8 bits, instead of down to 4. Either way, I prefer something like option B > current spec > option A; but they're all livable. -- Matthew Kerwin http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
Received on Sunday, 31 August 2014 01:50:09 UTC