Actually, I was thinking of something like the following:
bool m = true;
for (int i=0; i<conditions.size() && m; ++i) {
m = m && conditions[i].test();
}
Either way, you have to iterate through the conditions.
> or something similar. It might be good to add this as errdata since i'm
> pretty certain this can be seen in iop tests.
I'm not familiar enough with the erratum process to say whether this is appropriate, but I agree that this seems like a good thing to clarify. It might make sense to write a brief I-D with clarifications to RFC 4745, especially if there are other interop issues.
--Richard
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
