Hi Anton,
Last call deadline is only the deadline. Your comments are well within.
Yes, as Lou says, I noted that the L should apply only to the V for harmony
with OSPF.
I completely missed the LTV/TLV thing. Good catch!
Adrian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lou Berger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Anton Smirnov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Adrian Farrel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Fw: Four L1VPN working group last calls
Anton,
I believe someone else made a similar comment (perhaps Adrian?).
I agree that the T&L definition should be aligned with the common T&L
definition. (i.e., Type then length & length only covers size of V.)
Lou
At 11:16 AM 10/11/2007, Anton Smirnov wrote:
Hi Adrian, all,
I know it is damn close to last call deadline but I wanted to question
format of data propagated via OSPF in
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospf-auto-discovery-03.txt
Format of TLVs propagated via L1VPN LSA proposed as:
-----
3.2. L1VPN INFO TLV
The following TLV is introduced:
Name: L1VPN IPv4 Info
Type: 1
Length: Variable
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| L1VPN TLV length | L1VPN TLV Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
...
TLV length
The length of the TLV in bytes, including the 4 bytes of
the TLV header.
-----
So here length comes before TLV type (so strictly speaking it should be
called LTV throughout the document) and length includes TLV header.
Just about every TLV so far standardized to be propagated via OSPF has
Type field coming first and length covering only value field (see TLV
definitions in TE, GR, RCAP, LLS, tags and whatsnot). Wouldn't it be
prudent to avoid divergence and make implementator's life slightly easier
to follow the suit? OSPF is used here merely as a transport protocol for
L1VPN discovery values so it is better if definition of service fields is
more friendly toward existing OSPF practices.
Thanks,
Anton
Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi OSPF working group,
The L1VPN working group is holding a last call on several drafts. One of
them uses OSPF to advertise L1VPN membership.
This I-D has previously been presented to the OSPF working group and some
feedback has been incorporated. We would welcome any further thoughts
during the last call. By preference, please send comments to the L1VPN
list, but anything sent to the OSPF list will be forwarded.
Thanks,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Farrel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:17 PM
Subject: [L1vpn] Four working group last calls
Hi,
Now that there is a bit of peace and quiet on the CCAMP last calls, we
would like to hold L1VPN last calls on four I-Ds:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l1vpn-applicability-basic-mode-02.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-02.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l1vpn-bgp-auto-discovery-02.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospf-auto-discovery-03.txt
Since there are four drafts, we will make this a three week last call.
It will complete at 12 noon GMT on 18th October 2007.
We will be notifying the IDR, OSPF, and CCAMP working groups about this
last call.
Thanks,
Adrian, Hamid, and Tomonori
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
_______________________________________________
L1vpn mailing list
L1vpn@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn
