Hi Ramon, That works too, I would let the editors take the final call.
Thanks! Dhruv On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 11:55 AM Ramon Casellas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > *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 >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
