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" <grow-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of jh...@pfrc.org> 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 GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow