Re: Protocol Draft - PathDataTLV
Patrick Droz <dro@zurich.ibm.com> Fri, 04 April 2008 10:00 UTC
Message-Id: <FRI.4.APR.2008.120031.0200.>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 12:00:31 +0200
From: Patrick Droz <dro@zurich.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM Research Division
Subject: Re: Protocol Draft - PathDataTLV
Comments: To: Avri Doria <avri@psg.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="------------ms070905040909030203080600"
Hi Avri, yes, this is fine with me. Regards, Patrick Avri Doria wrote: > 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 >> >> > > > > -- Dr. Patrick Droz | dro@zurich.ibm.com IBM Zurich Research Laboratory | http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~dro Saumerstrasse 4 | Tel. +41-44-724-85-25 CH-8803 Rueschlikon/Switzerland | Fax. +41-44-724-85-78
- Protocol Draft - PathDataTLV Evangelos Haleplidis
- Re: Protocol Draft - PathDataTLV Patrick Droz
- Re: Protocol Draft - PathDataTLV Avri Doria
- Re: Protocol Draft - PathDataTLV Evangelos Haleplidis
- Re: Protocol Draft - PathDataTLV Jamal Hadi Salim