Robert, > So it was very clear that we MUST skip what we do not recognize :) I was not > sure if we should at that point bail out from further parsing of a given TLV > or trying next sub-TLV. I guess there is no mandate of that in the spec and > implementations should/may try to continue to parse.
You always continue to parse. Production implementations are not test suites looking for bugs. If there is unrecognized data, then the presumption is that it is new functionality that the implementation does not yet understand. Stopping parsing would break legacy behavior. > Also is my understanding correct that the subject draft does not allow to > split sub-TLVs itself ? Meaning that any sub-TLV must fit one part of the > TLV. I found some text allowing duplication of sub-TLVs in multiple parts of > TLV if sender choose to do such thing - but I assume this says that sub-TLV > is still a complete one in each part ? I’m not sure that I can parse that. :-) Sub-TLVs can be split into multiple sub-TLVs. If the parent TLV is full, then parts of the sub-TLV may be carried in separate instances of the parent TLV. In other words, the solution is fully recursive. T _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org
