Hi Ramon,
OK, thanks a lot.
Any more opinions from the WG?
Thanks
Fatai
Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang,
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Tel: +86-755-28972912
Fax: +86-755-28972935
----- Original Message -----
From: Ramon Casellas
To: Fatai Zhang ; pce@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Pce] VENDOR-CONSTRAINT
El 25/05/2011 4:22, Fatai Zhang escribió:
Hi Ramon,
If I understand you correctly, do you meant that you prefer "only the
VENDOR-CONSTRAINT object" to "one extra TLV"?
Hello Fatai, all,
I'm afraid not (sorry for not having expressed myself clearly). In the case
of vendor constraints, I think, without a strong opinion, that I would rather
have vendor-specific TLVs that apply to a given object, rather than a top-level
object. The reasons for this are:
* It seems more granular and clearly identifies which object is constrained.
Seems less opaque :)
* The default behavior as current RFC is to ignore the TLV if not
known/supported. This may require a flags field within the TLV to specify that
the constrain was indeed processed.
A good question is whether a single TLV "vendor_tlv" would do, or there is a
reason to have more grained tlvs
There are some drawbacks of course:
* There are objects that were defined without TLVs. With a strict
interpretation of rfc 5440, it would not be possible to constrain such objects.
* The constraint (semantics) involved in the TLV has to somehow relate to the
object it is attached to. If there is no such object, the use of TLVs seems
less flexible and an object would be needed.
In short, there seem to be use cases for both. Preferably, use vendor tlvs.
Thank you and best regards
R.
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
