Re: Protocol Draft - PathDataTLV

[Avri Doria <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

as long as it is ok with the group and the shepherd, I will save up
all the changes for a post IETF LC release.

thanks

a.



On 1 Apr 2008, at 21:48, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> Greetings Evangelos,
>
> Much thanks for the review; comments below.
>
> On Mon, 2008-31-03 at 22:56 +0300, Evangelos Haleplidis wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>> 1. Path-Data-TLV is the only TLV (besides KEYINFO-TLV) that is not
>> depicted
>> as a graph in the document. While it is described, it would be good
>> for
>> consistency to be seen. In the end of the document I include an
>> example.
>
> Looks usable to me. If there are no objections from the other authors,
> we should include it.
>
>> 2. In the second text the part "when PATH flags are 00" should be
>> changed to
>> "when PATH flags are 0x00", unless there was intended as 0b00. It
>> should be
>> specified however for clarity.
>
> I think that paragraph is a bit confusing; please refer to the other
> text I am suggesting below to replace that section.
>
>> 3. About Selector Bit, in which position does it exist in the
>> flags? I guess
>> it should be the first. However I think it should be documented for
>> clarity
>> purposes (I also include a graph in the end of the mail).
>>
>
> Hrm. Good catch. Our implementation has it at the other end. i.e.
> bit 15
> May i suggest we put it there?
>
>> 4. I don't understand exactly what the text in page 48 regarding
>> FullData
>> TLVs mean. If PathFlags!=0x00 then the FullData MUST contain inside
>> the V
>> the row besides the value, the index of the row (fifth row for
>> example)? But
>> if PathFlags==0x00 then it MAY contain that OR the row will be
>> specified in
>> the Path (IDs)? While I searched I did not see an example in the
>> document,
>> or perhaps I was searching wrong.
>
> This is the same in concern of #2. So for both #2 and #4 here's text
> which i think provides more clarity.
>
> -------------
> When a table is referred to in the PATH (IDs) of a PATH-DATA-TLV,
> then the FULLDATA's "V" will contain all of that table's row contents.
> Refer to blah for an example of this.
> It is possible to reference a specific single row by appending
> to the PATH (IDs) the index of the specific table row. For an
> example of this refer to blah. If a a table row is referenced
> in this way then in order to avoid ambiguity, the PATH flags must
> MUST ensure that the content selection flag (F_SELKEY) is not set.
> Setting F_SELKEY will result in blah error.
> -------
>
> I will look up the examples and replace the blahs.
> By not specifying the 00 leaves us room in the future should we add
> more
> flags to be make sure those are not zeroed out when needed..
>
> Does this provide more clarity?
>
> Thanks again for the scrutiny.
>
> cheers,
> jamal
>
>