Jeff,
I've updated this to UTF-8. From a receiver point of view, we handle utf-8
generically without any special need to deserialize it. I suggest we do not
attempt to define structure and/or constraints around the VRF names as that
would severely impact system implementations that are out-of-scope of this
draft.
How about if we add:
"The structure, syntax, and constraints for a VRF name are router specific."
??
For example:
Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains a UTF-8
string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or table
name (e.g. RD instance name) being conveyed. The string size
MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes. The structure,
syntax,
and constraints for a VRF name are router specific.
Thanks,
Tim
On 11/3/20, 4:52 PM, "GROW on behalf of Jeffrey Haas" <[email protected]
on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
Job,
I agree that utf-8 is more appropriate, but would remind you that a great
deal more text about handling it would be needed. See prior discussion on RFC
8203.
Jeff
> On Nov 3, 2020, at 1:29 AM, Job Snijders
>
> ### note 8
>
> section 5.3
>
> Curious: why ASCII and not UTF-8 (of which ASCII is a subset)?
>
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
