Hi all, On 12/02, Job Snijders wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Please take 15 minutes out of your day to review this *really short!* > internet-draft. The authors were kind enough to make it only 3 pages of > actual content :-) > I have read the draft, and agree with others that it is a straight forward solution to a genuine problem.
I have a couple of questions/comments:
1. I don't understand the purpose of the SHOULD in:
TLVs SHOULD be sorted by their code point. Multiple TLVs of the
same type can be repeated as part of the same message, and it is
left to the specific use-cases whether all, any, the first or
the last TLV should be considered.
A receiver clearly cannot optimise for receiving the TLVs sorted,
since it isn't a MUST. Beyond this, why is it useful?
2. In the types defined in section 4.2, I read "value MUST be boolean"
as meaning "length MUST be 1 and value MUST be either 0x00 or 0x01".
Is that correct? If so, perhaps it is better to be explicit?
3. I had a variety of grammatical/editorial suggestions. Rather than
gum-up the list with these, I have opened a pull-request at:
https://github.com/paololucente/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv/pull/2
I hope that makes review more convenient for the authors.
Cheers,
Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
