Thanks Alan, will correct the nit. I need to correct by previous ambiguity: By: 'without changing too much the draft spec' I should have said: 'without changing too much the protocol that was "defined" draft spec. The original draft spec text has already been largely rewritten by the recent submissions.
Thanks, Regards, Doug. On 17/09/2017 15:26, "Alan DeKok" <al...@deployingradius.com> wrote: >On Sep 16, 2017, at 11:41 PM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) <dcmg...@cisco.com> >wrote: >> >> We¹re preparing the next revision. Regarding attribute value encoding, >> we¹re proposing to add the following, then to assign a type to each >> attribute. As always with T+, the issue is getting the right balance in >> adding some order without changing too much the draft spec. > > The right balance is to document the protocol. > > If documenting the spec means tossing the draft and starting from >scratch, then so be it. > >> Proposed content is as below, please share any views: > > It definitely seems better that the previous ad-hoc definitions. > >> Boolean >> >> All boolean attributes are encoded with values "true" or "false". > > Nit: encoded as US-ASCII strings with values... > > > Alan DeKok. > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
