Hi Peter, Chris,
In this particular case, it may be ok as long as we just limit the code point
space to the 1 octet type (i.e., 0-255 with reserved values). However, for all
the reasons Peter and Les have already articulated, there will be cases where
the TLV or Sub-TLV registries cannot be common. So, I have to ask myself just
what are we gaining by here? The encodings are not going to be identical (for
all the previously mentioned reasons) and this leaves the door open for time
wasted on revisiting this issue...
Thanks,
Acee
On 5/20/18, 9:21 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppse...@cisco.com> wrote:
Chris,
On 20/05/18 01:47 , Christian Hopps wrote:
> How about an option 2c
>
> 2c: Leave the encodings the way they are, and use a common registry to
define the type/value semantics.
having a combined registry that defines FAD Sub-TLVs types is fine with me.
thanks,
Peter
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
