> On Jul 13, 2023, at 17:23, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Renato, > >> >> Lastly, this might just be a small nitpick of mine, but I don't think >> having a "length" leaf for all TLVs and Sub-TLVs adds much value. In >> my opinion, it's only relevant for unknown TLVs that couldn't be >> decoded; otherwise, it just adds unnecessary noise. If we take a look >> at the IS-IS model, for instance, we can see that it doesn't have a >> "length" leaf for the LSP TLVs and Sub-TLVs. > > I’ve removed the three "length" leaves that were fixed length. I left the > ones that were variable due to contained sub-TLVS. > Are you saying that these TLVs would be malformed if the length weren’t > correct?
I wonder what one would do with these length values? Only "unknown" things have a value leaf `+--ro value? yang:hex-string` And in that case the length is given by the length of the hex-string. I definitely think there could be value with having the length field when things are malformed i.e., where the `length` field in the [sub-]TLV disagrees with the actual length of the `yang:hex-string` value. In this case though we might want to call it out as `malformed-length` or something. Thanks, Chris.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
