Hi Charlie
Maybe I misunderstood but it's this text in section 5 that caught my eye:
"The sense of the addresses in the uRREP has to be reversed;
RREQ.OrigAddr fulfills the role of the TargAddr in the uRREP."
John
On 27/04/15 17:22, Charlie Perkins wrote:
Hello John,
Well, first, the uRREP and iRREP do provide positional independence just as
with RREP, but I feel like I am missing your point.
Second (and, this has been done in the IETF) yes we can use arbitrary names
(even X, Y, and Z) and let the implementer sort it out. My programming background
burnt into my mind at a deep level the importance of using "meaningful"
variable names. I am always on the lookout for "better" names, though!
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 4/27/2015 8:58 AM, John Dowdell wrote:
Hi Charlie
So I can see what you are doing here, no problem with the iRREP and uRREP. However, given that positional independence is all the rage these days, I wonder if you ought not to reverse the order of addresses in the messages (if that's what you are doing). Why not just call them what they are and let the implementer sort that out?
Best regards
John
On 24/04/15 23:22, Charlie Perkins wrote:
Hello folks,
Here's an updated version of the Intermediate RREP document.
I'll try to get the rough draft of updated Security Considerations out
soon, maybe today. First I have to catch up on the relevant emails.
Regards,
Charlie P.
