On 03.09.2016 22:15, Donald Eastlake wrote:
- the difference between the "VLAN Block Case" (2.1) and "Extensible
Case" (2.2) feels artificial. Why not add a "VLAN block TLV", which
contains the list of VLAN start/end fields?
As I recall this was in order to make the VLAN Block case closer to,
for convenience, an existing implemented address flush RBridge channel
message (using one of the "Private Use" RBridge Channel message
protocol numbers) that only applies to VLAN blocks.
Okay, I didn't check for similarity with older messages.
> I'll see what people think about merging the cases.
One more question, is case 2.2 optional to implement or is it mandatory?
- maybe the Nicknames could also be moved into a TLV, allowing to
process the whole message with a single TLV based parser.
I can see making a common TLV format for all the non-nickname lists
but I'm not sure there is much advantage to doing so for nicknames.
Unified parser codepath... maybe even with checking the TLVs against
some kind of "schema" before processing them.
Henning Rogge
--
Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , Fraunhofer-Institut für
Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie FKIE
Kommunikationssysteme (KOM)
Zanderstrasse 5, 53177 Bonn, Germany
Telefon +49 228 50212-469
mailto:[email protected] http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de
_______________________________________________
trill mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
