Em dom., 16 de jul. de 2023 às 22:37, Christian Hopps <[email protected]> escreveu: > > 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.
Exactly. I'd probably keep the "length" leaf for unknown TLVs/Sub-TLVs to be consistent with other modules (including the OSPF base module). But I don't see much point for known TLVs/Sub-TLVs. > 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. That's an interesting suggestion. In practice, however, I think most implementations will reject LSAs containing malformed TLVs/Sub-TLVs as a security measure. > On Jul 13, 2023, at 10:32, Renato Westphal <[email protected]> wrote: > [snip] > I think the "ospfv3-lsa-prefix" grouping from the base > module could be reused since it's identical, except it doesn't include > the "prefix-length" leaf. So, it turns out it wasn't a good idea to reuse that grouping from the base module. The reason is that its "prefix-options" leaf-list uses an identityref to "ospfv3-prefix-option", whereas the "ietf-ospfv3-extended-lsa" module should use an identityref to "ospfv3-e-prefix-option" instead (notice the "e-" in the middle). My apologies for the bad suggestion ^^ Regards, -- Renato Westphal _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
