Re: Protocol Draft - KEYINFO-TLV
"Wang,Weiming" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Tue, 01 April 2008 15:03 UTC
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 23:03:17 +0800
From: "Wang,Weiming" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Protocol Draft - KEYINFO-TLV
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-7"
Hi Evangelos, From the contecptual point of view, the KeyID is a type of "IDs" as explained in p.45, which occupying the same length (32bits). Whereas, I agree that applying a text like KeyID(32bits) in the KeyID term explanation paragraph might make things more clear. On the graph description of the Path-Data-TLV, I just think current BNF is a clear and efficient method. At the time we chose the BNF, we had made some considerations like the inefficiency for graph to describe duplicate TLVs case and the self-contained TLV case. Thanks a lot for the careful review. Thanks, Weiming ----- Original Message ----- From: "Evangelos Haleplidis" <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Greetings, > > My question was what the size of the KeyID, in terms of the protocol > message, is. Are the KeyIDs 4 bytes long? I couldn't find any specification > in the protocol draft, and I believe there should be one in there, or an > explanation of how to get it. Or is it derived by the KeyInfoTLV's L value? > I couldn't find a text that explains that also. > > Also, how many keys can there be in an array? Will there be more than 127 > (1byte)? Is there a need for 4 bytes? Since for each array we can have > individual numbering. > > Regards, > Evangelos Haleplidis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Forwarding and Control Element Separation > [mailto:FORCES@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 4:05 AM > To: FORCES@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM > Subject: Re: Protocol Draft - KEYINFO-TLV > > The KeyData is, I believe a FULLDATA TLV, as it can be any form of data, and > may need its own length. > > The KeyID is an ID, as defined in the model. There can be multiple keys, > each made up of multiple values. The keyid tells you wha tkey is being > used. Please look at the model and let us know if there is a need for more > text on that. > > Yours, > Joel M. Halpern > > Evangelos Haleplidis wrote: >> Greetings again to the list, >> >> I have some comment regarding the KEYINFO-TLV. >> >> 1. As with the PathData TLV there was no Graph, so I made up one. I >> include it in the end of the mail. >> 2. About the KeyID, it is not specified specific in the document what >> the size is. I guess it is an integer, shouldn't it be specified for > clarity? >> How many Keys may exist for a specific table? Could/Should the KeyID >> be limited to less than 4 bytes? >> 3. In Page 45 it is written: >> KEYINFO-TLV := KeyID FULLDATA-TLV Shouldn't it be changed to: >> KEYINFO-TLV := KeyID KEYDATA >> KEYDATA := FULLDATA-TLV >> Or >> KEYINFO-TLV := KeyID KeyData >> This would be in accordance with the examples also in the appendix. >> >> Regards, >> Evangelos Haleplidis. >> >> =============================== >> KeyInfo-TLV Graph >> >> 0 1 2 3 >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> | Type = KeyInfo | Length | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> | KeyID | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> | KeyData | >> . . >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> >> >