From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE, MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!bbn!bbn.com!jm From: jm@bbn.com (John Morrison) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: nested variant records query Message-ID: <40671@bbn.COM> Date: 31 May 89 02:15:41 GMT Sender: news@bbn.COM List-Id: In a bit of communications software, we may need to nest variant records. Has anybody gotten this to work? It seems that our system (we're on an R1000) insists that the inner variant record must be constrained. If you ask me, that's not much of a variant record. This has been so nasty, that we are now wondering if we're not looking at the problem incorrectly. In other words, are variant records the right (only?) way to do packet i/o? Anybody else had this problem? It would crop up in the IP layer of the DoD protocol stack if you were doing 802.3 link-layer with at least one other protocol stack as well. The first discriminant would be the 802.3 length (HA!) field, and the second would be IP protocol field. John Morrison ARPANET:jmorrison@bbn.com PHONE :(617) 873-2648 ADDRESS:BBN Systems & Technologies Corp. 10 Moulton Street Cambridge, Mass. 02238