> [JD] What RFC 7432 actually says is: "The MAC Address Length field is in > bits, > and it is set to 48. > MAC address length values other than 48 bits are outside the scope of this > document." So, The MAC Address field is a variable length field whose > length is currently set to 48.
And the figure clearly shows the length at 6 octets only. I'm not arguing the draft didn't _intend_ to make this a variable length field -- I'm arguing the draft, as written, can easily be misinterpreted, and could use clarification. > [JD] Just because you don't like/understand it doesn't necessarily mean it's > wrong. John -- you could have said, "I think it's elegant because..." -- or, "I agree it's not perfect, but we chose this solution because..." Instead, you decided to launch a personal attack, calling me stupid/uneducated/ignorant/whatever. This is one of the things that drives me absolutely nuts about working in the IETF -- we cannot hold ourselves to an actual discussion, we have to find some way to make claims about other people personally, no matter whether or not we think they're true, etc. The next time someone says, "I can't figure out why we are losing participation in the IETF," go back and reread your response. Now -- to return to the actual topic at hand -- I find the idea of binding things together tightly, and then creating an "alias," rather than creating a looser bind and map in the first place, is worse. That might not fit what you think, but it's still something worth mentioning. :-) Russ _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
