Hi Paolo, On 12/08, Paolo Lucente wrote: > > Hi Ben, > > Thank you for your review, very much appreciated. I will merge your PR on > GitHub asap. With regards to the other two points: > > 1) This came through a suggestion back then from Jeff Haas that i support as > it made sense to me, see here his comment on this list: > > == > While a bit pedantic, I strongly suggest "TLVs SHOULD be sorted by their > code point.". > > Many implementations that deal with TLV based protocols will canonicalize > data structures based on the TLVs using sorted structures. Having them > sorted on the wire means the canonicalization step is cheaper. > > Note that this is a general justification for the procedure and it's not > critical for something like BMP. > == > That makes sense, thanks. Having never written a routine that does this, I am slightly surprised that it is still cheaper, even if the implementation cannot *require* that it will arrive sorted - but I am more than happy to take yours and Jeff's word for it!
> 2) That is right & suggestion accapted. I will make it further explicit. > Ack. Thanks. Cheers, Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
