Subject: Re: OSPF TLVs

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 09:23:04 -0700

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Adrian Farrel wrote:

> I don't see why there is any change required.

Agree with Adrian.

> You appear to be precluding TLVs from having any length that is not a
> multiple of four bytes. This seems unnecessary.

(I don't think Venkata says that.  But then again, he can chime in.)

> What we currently have is a rule that tells you how to encode a TLV into an
> OSPF LSA if it is not a multiple of four bytes.
> You have a separate rule that says that a specific TLV has some reserved
> bytes.

If a TLV has reserved bits/bytes that it explicitly defines, that's
just part of the Value field as far as the TLV is concerned.

> Why do we need to make any changes?

Why indeed?  :-)

> The only change that might be of use would be to change the name of any
> field that is included in a TLV from "padding" to "reserved" to avoid
> confusion.

Good idea.

> Perhaps the draft's authors would like to contribute to this thread.

Don't know which draft you're referring to, unless it's draft 3630 :-)

Kireeti.
-------

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 12:44:32 -0400

Hi Kireeti,

The original question is draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-12.txt.
It was whether or not the fields labeled "Padding" should be included
in the sub-TLV.  The answer is that they are part of the sub-TLVs
and should be included in the length (from Adrian). I think it would
be clearer if you replaced "Padding" with "Reserved" since the padding will
be there whether it is implicit or explicit.

Thanks,
Acee