On 2/16/2017 1:14 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Joe Touch <to...@isi.edu> wrote: >> >> On 2/16/2017 12:27 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: >>> The problems of TLVs, particularly that they are unordered, require >>> iterative processing, >> That's trivially avoided by forcing the order. >> >> As I noted before, all that is required for equivalently easy processing >> is that both TLVs and bitfields use only known variants in only known >> orders. >> > Joe, do you know of any protocols that enforce such an ordering?
No, because in most cases the "T" is intended to allow arbitrary reordering. My point is just that it isn't TLV itself that affects hardware and parallelization; it's the potential for variation. The same variation and need for serial processing could be true for new definitions for previously undefined bitfields values. E.g., consider that the first few bits of an IP packet determine whether the addresses are 32 bits or 128 bits, etc. Joe _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list nvo3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
