So this came up during the second session at IETF104. Our base YANG data models have "baked" representations of TLV data and then a catch all "unknown tlv" list for the unrecognized data.
When a new feature is added that adds a new TLVs it would seem obvious to also add an augmentation to the base model to provide a similar "baked" version of the new TLV data. However, does this now mean that the TLV is no longer "unknown"? Is the data removed from the unknown list or just present in both cases? Thinking about this made me realize the following: It's very common to want to get *all* the TLV data in raw form. With the current design the client has to settle for reverse engineering the baked data in addition to pulling the TLV data from the unknown list. A more functional choice is to simply have the "unknonwn-tlv" list return *all* the TLV data. Whether a TLV is "known" (i.e., a baked version is present) to the server is already indicated by looking at the servers reported capabilities. At least with the IS-IS module this could be a minor change (rename "unknown-tlvs" to "tlvs" and update the description). I believe the change is also similarly minor for OSPF as well. It would be nice, if people agree, and agree its not too late, to make this change now rather than wait for the IESG/IETF LC to complete and then have to do a BIS update. Thanks, Chris.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
