[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: no overall type in Extended Attributes
Alan DeKok [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] writes:
> Glen Zorn wrote:
> > Not historically. In RFC 2869, for example, the Tag field is used to
> > sets of attributes in an ad-hoc fashion: there's no requirement
> placed on
> > the actual membership of the groups & different groups can contain
> > different sets of attributes in the same message.
> Then I'm not clear on why the extended attribute format has tags. I
> thought it was about grouping TLV's?
Hmm. I seem to be having some serious problems communicating today,
or...anyway, I used the word "group" or its plural 3 times in one sentence.
How do you get the idea that tags aren't used for grouping?
> > It's a very inefficient encapsulation, too, since all of the TLVs
> could be
> > carried in a single extended attribute.
> But they can be... the draft says that multiple attributes can go
> one Extended-Attribute, so long as it's not fragmented. Since the
> extended attibute *header* contains the tag, all of the attributes it
> encapsulates inherit that tag.
OK, how would you specify this behavior in a document so that humans could
actually understand it?
> Or am I missing something completely?
Or maybe I am...
> Alan DeKok.
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.