Re: [DNA] Updates to dna-protocol3

[Brett Pentland <brett.pentland@eng.monash.edu.au>]

Hi Greg,

>> - Should the explicit linkid always be in the LPO or can it be a flag in
>>   a PIO (the latter is in the draft)?
> 
> It is a significant (16 octet) cost saving to make use of a flag in the
> PIO to explicitly mark a link identifier.  The processing is more
> complicated in that PIOs and Landmark options have to be checked until
> the identifier is found.
> 
> This per prefix processing is required if there's no identifier (using
> CPL) though, so that's not a major problem.

So leave the draft as is?  I agree.

>> - What order do the hosts treat the indications (land mark option,
>>   prefixes, linkid in the draft at present)
> 
> I'd be interested in finding out what others think.

Me too.

> My personal thought was that the completeRA flag trumps all.
> 
>> - Given that we now have an explicit linkid, should we get rid of all of
>>   the flags in the landmark option - the no flag is not really needed
>>   and since taking that out would leave only one, we can probably get
>>   rid of that as well - LO in RA = yes (at present the flags are still
>>   there)
> 
> it doesn't make the option any smaller to remove. perhaps we can leave
> it for future extension?

I think it's probably not needed, but don't mind leaving it there.

Cheers,
Brett.