Subject: RE: Consistent body TLV? WAS( RE: [Forces-protocol] Add Route Example

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 19:23:34 -0700

Hi Jamal,

Thanks for your comments. My comments below.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jamal Hadi Salim [mailto:[email-masked]] 

> [HK] Yes 16 bits might be insufficient for this. However, I could
> combine LFB Type (16 bits, including version no), Operation (8 bits),
> Flags (8 Bits) into a 32-bit field. Does that sound good ? Let me know

>From your comments to Weiming i now understand the meaning of type.
16 bits is a little too much for that. So having it as:

TYPE := ATTR_TYPE(4 bits max): VERSION (4 bits): OPERATION(8 bits)
i think should suffice.
[HK] I think Version for LFB is valuable. Is that what you mean by
Version ?
Regarding having this as part of Type, I have sent an email describing
the design principle for Type in TLV that I have used, let me know what
you think about that ?

Also: I dont think it would make much of a difference whether the T in
TLV is global or per message. Infact on second thought I think that
it may make sense to have it as local as proposed by Weiming since it
gives us more room.
[HK] I agree that having local scope will give more room. Anyways my
email on TLV will describe my reasoning better. Let me know if that
makes sense to you ?

regards
Hormuzd

_______________________________________________
Forces-protocol mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol