[L1vpn] Re: [OSPF] Fw: Four L1VPN working group last calls

    Hi Adrian, all,
    I know it is damn close to last call deadline but I wanted to 
question format of data propagated via OSPF in

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospf-auto-discovery-03.txt

Format of TLVs propagated via L1VPN LSA proposed as:

-----
3.2. L1VPN INFO TLV

    The following TLV is introduced:

    Name: L1VPN IPv4 Info
    Type: 1
    Length: Variable

     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |         L1VPN TLV length      |           L1VPN TLV Type      |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
...

    TLV length
       The length of the TLV in bytes, including the 4 bytes of
       the TLV header.
-----

So here length comes before TLV type (so strictly speaking it should be 
called LTV throughout the document) and length includes TLV header.
Just about every TLV so far standardized to be propagated via OSPF has 
Type field coming first and length covering only value field (see TLV 
definitions in TE, GR, RCAP, LLS, tags and whatsnot). Wouldn't it be 
prudent to avoid divergence and make implementator's life slightly 
easier to follow the suit? OSPF is used here merely as a transport 
protocol for L1VPN discovery values so it is better if definition of 
service fields is more friendly toward existing OSPF practices.

    Thanks,

Anton

Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi OSPF working group,
> 
> The L1VPN working group is holding a last call on several drafts. One of 
> them uses OSPF to advertise L1VPN membership.
> 
> This I-D has previously been presented to the OSPF working group and 
> some feedback has been incorporated. We would welcome any further 
> thoughts during the last call. By preference, please send comments to 
> the L1VPN list, but anything sent to the OSPF list will be forwarded.
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
> To: <l1vpn@ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:17 PM
> Subject: [L1vpn] Four working group last calls
> 
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> Now that there is a bit of peace and quiet on the CCAMP last calls, we 
>> would like to hold L1VPN last calls on four I-Ds:
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l1vpn-applicability-basic-mode-02.txt 
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-02.txt
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l1vpn-bgp-auto-discovery-02.txt 
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospf-auto-discovery-03.txt 
>>
>>
>> Since there are four drafts, we will make this a three week last call. 
>> It will complete at 12 noon GMT on 18th October 2007.
>>
>> We will be notifying the IDR, OSPF, and CCAMP working groups about 
>> this last call.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Adrian, Hamid, and Tomonori
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

_______________________________________________
L1vpn mailing list
L1vpn@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn