Paolo, Thanks for addressing my comments. One final reply on this thread:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 12:30:53PM +0000, Paolo Lucente wrote: > Done. This opened a further consideration at my end. The document lacks a > statement as in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lucente-bmp-tlv-00 about > “TLVs can be sent in any order. While a bit pedantic, I strongly suggest "TLVs SHOULD be sorted by their code point." Many implementations that deal with TLV based protocols will canonicalize data structures based on the TLVs using sorted structures. Having them sorted on the wire means the canonicalization step is cheaper. Note that this is a general justification for the procedure and it's not critical for something like BMP. > Multiple TLVs of the same type can be > repeated as part of the same message and it is left to the specific > use-cases whether all, any, the first or the last TLV should be > considered.”. In the specific case of VRF/Table Name one could have both a > VRF id/name and a Table Name, hence the same TLV could be repeated twice > (my take is that it’s a perfectly valid scenario). I’d tackle this case > once i get green light from you that we are good about how your feedback > was processed. I suspect most vendors will eventually generate a composite name and send a single TLV for the name. It would not shock me at some point if this becomes sufficiently vendor specific that we start seeing vendor specific TLVs here. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
