From: Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> Hi Ramon, I think this could be more clearly stated as - OLD This document defines one mandatory TLV "VIRTUAL-NETWORK-TLV" and one new optional TLV "VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV"; apart from this TLV, VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV can be used to carry arbitrary vendor specific information. o VIRTUAL-NETWORK-TLV: Used to communicate the VN Identifier. o VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV: Used to communicate arbitrary vendor specific behavioral information, described in [RFC7470]. NEW This document defines one new mandatory TLV "VIRTUAL-NETWORK-TLV"; apart from this TLV, the existing VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV [RFC7470] can be optionally used as described below: o VIRTUAL-NETWORK-TLV: Used to communicate the VN Name. o VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV: Used to communicate arbitrary vendor specific behavioral information, described in [RFC7470]. END The VIRTUAL-NETWORK-TLV is used for VN Name only and any other vendor-specific info goes in VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV. Does this work for you? Hi Dhruv, all Almost there :) -- I also noticed that you also changed Identifier -> Name, I guess that’s from another comment – IMHO, * now the text seems to say: “the existing tlv can be used as described below : “ and one of the two bullets still relates to the new VN_TLV. Maybe adding a “jointly” * the two references to RFC7470 are IMHO slightly redundant NEW NEW OPTION 1 This document defines one new mandatory TLV "VIRTUAL-NETWORK-TLV”. Optionally, the new TLV can be jointly used with the existing VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV [RFC7470] as described below: o VIRTUAL-NETWORK-TLV: Used to communicate the VN Name. o VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV: Used to communicate arbitrary vendor specific behavioral information, described in [RFC7470]. END (the “, described in [RFC7470].” could be suppressed) Personally, I would simplify it as follows: NEW NEW OPTION 2 This document defines one new mandatory TLV "VIRTUAL-NETWORK-TLV", used to communicate the VN Name. Note that the existing VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV can be optionally used to communicate arbitrary vendor specific behavioral information, as described in [RFC7470]. END That said, it is quite minor, the point was avoiding the confusion that the draft defined the vendor tlv, I am ok with any wording Thanks and best regards Ramon
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
