Subject: RE: [Forces-protocol] T in TLV ?

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 19:48:15 -0700

Weiming,

Thanks for your prompt reply. This is helpful.

Regards

Hormuzd

  _____  

From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Weiming Wang
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:26 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Forces-protocol] T in TLV ?

Hi all,

I'm ok to have T with global meaning, though I think it actually make
little sense, because the msg type has quite limited the global use of
the TLVs. Actually till now, I still have not noticed one TLV that can
be used across different msgs. One advantage for local T is that it may
supply more space, but actually I think currently we are not short of
the space. 

As a summary,  my opinion is both are ok to me.

Cheers,

Weiming

----- Original Message ----- 

	From: Khosravi, Hormuzd M <mailto:[email-masked]>

	To: [email-masked] 

	Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 10:09 AM

	Subject: [Forces-protocol] T in TLV ?

	Hi Team,

	One question that Jamal raised, do we want to have global scope
for T in the TLV across all messages ?

	i.e. Type 0x1 means something for Association Setup msg and Type
0x32 means something for Config msg.

	The other option is local scope i.e. Type 0x1 means something
for Association Setup msg and 

	Type 0x1 means something else in Config msg.

	I agree with Jamal that uniform semantics and global scope would
be cleaner, 

	however let us know what you all think ??

	Thanks

	Hormuzd