Hi,
I'm glad Gorry brought this up; I'd be good to clarify the relation
between CCID4 and 3448bis.
On 2008-3-7, at 21:41, ext Sally Floyd wrote:
My suggestion would be that we add a sentence to rfc3448bis saying
that "CCID-3 and CCID-4 implementations MAY use rfc3448bis instead
of RFC 3448." Or "SHOULD" - either one would seem reasonable to me.
That seems like a good suggestion. If we do this, we also need to add
an "Updates: 4342" header to this document, and a corresponding
sentence to draft-ietf-dccp-ccid4.
If it says "MAY" instead of "SHOULD", then there are probably some
parts of rfc3448bis that fix corner cases that should be separately
labeled "SHOULD" for CCID-3. But if a new document is required,
someone other than me would have to volunteer to take that on - I
am semi-retired these days, working less than half time, and am not
going to be taking on any new commitments.
The *intention* is that there is nothing in rfc3448bis that requires
senders and receivers to be coordinated as both following rfc3448,
or both following rfc3448bis. In particular, Section 3.2 on Packet
Contents has essentially not changed. (And DCCP and CCID 3 add
their own requirements for packet contents that are independent
from RFC 3448 or rfc3448bis.)
Lars
