Re: [Idr] community of the day - common header

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

> I will say presuming that large is adopted by the WG (either
> with or without the header as part of that draft or some other ..)

But isn't it why we are discussing it now ?

Btw ... Jakob already has a version with just the TLV listed referring to
externally defined common community header.

I think it may be good to post it as well so WG could see both versions of
large comms docs.

I would vote with both hands for adoption of the latter draft. Then we can
focus full discussion on the format of the common header.

Otherwise if the current draft asking for separate attribute get's adopted
and then WG decides to go with common community header it will be just a
bigger mess to clean up.

Thx,
R.