Dhruv, thank you for sending the reference. In that case, should already be compliant since the draft defines new pcep tlvs.
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dh...@huawei.com> wrote: > Hi Ina, > > > > Snipping to the only open issue… > > > > > - In sec 7.3.2. Symbolic Path Name TLV, can the following text be added? > > The Symbolic Path Name is padded to 4-bytes alignment; padding > itself is not included in the Length field. > > ### No, I think this is a disruptive change for implementations that > already handle the variable length of this TLV. Doing what you propose > would break the parsing code. > > > But RFC5440 TLV definition require this > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5440#section-7.1 > > *7.1* <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5440#section-7.1>*. PCEP TLV Format* > > A PCEP object may include a set of one or more optional TLVs. > > > > All PCEP TLVs have the following format: > > > > Type: 2 bytes > > Length: 2 bytes > > Value: variable > > > > A PCEP object TLV is comprised of 2 bytes for the type, 2 bytes > > specifying the TLV length, and a value field. > > > > The Length field defines the length of the value portion in bytes. > > The TLV is padded to 4-bytes alignment; padding is not included in > > the Length field (so a 3-byte value would have a length of 3, but the > > total size of the TLV would be 8 bytes). > > > > So I am hoping the implementations of stateful PCE should follow the base > RFC5440 TLV definition . > > > > Regards, > > Dhruv > > >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
