> frankly I doubt this ambiguity exists.
This definitely eases my concern.
Thank you, Chris, for your email.
Regards,
--Bruno
-Original Message-
From: Christian Hopps
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2024 2:45 PM
To: Aijun Wang
Cc: 'Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)' ; DECRAENE
Bruno INNOV/NET ; 'Ket
Aijun Wang writes:
Hi, Chris:
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
On Aug 8, 2024, at 20:53, Christian Hopps wrote:
[As WG member]
I'm neutral on whether the RFC should try and identify what the specific key
is for all the existing TLVs; however, I think the current draft does define
what a key is.
Hi, Chris:
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
> On Aug 8, 2024, at 20:53, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> [As WG member]
>
> I'm neutral on whether the RFC should try and identify what the specific key
> is for all the existing TLVs; however, I think the current draft does define
> what a key is. It's exa
[As WG member]
I'm neutral on whether the RFC should try and identify what the specific key is
for all the existing TLVs; however, I think the current draft does define what
a key is. It's exactly the data which would identify multiple TLVs as being all
part of a single logical TLV. The draft
