[Teas] 答复: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-scsi

[Fatai Zhang <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian and Daniele,



Interesting.



I understood the purpose of split ranges is allowing technology specific ones go for the first range "1-32768", and generalized ones go for the second range "32768-65535".



But, the issue raised by Adrian is coming, i.e., one by one technology specific ones go for the first range, and people realize later on that they should be generalized by using the second range.



In addition, "'Any', or list of multiple technologies" is a little confusing, since "Any" includes technology specific.



So, should it explicitly say that technology agnostic( or generic ones) go for the second range?





> > I think Section 6 could be clearer...

>>

> > But, I don't think this is going to work!

> > Suppose I define a new TLV for the foo-switch technology. Obviously

> > it comes from the 1-32768 range.

> > But the next day someone dreams up the foo-prime (commonly known as

> > bar) technology and wants to use the same TLV.

> > Can't do it.

>

> I don't get this either (and It's only Thursday...). Foo would get

> value 1 allocated and bar value 2 if they are both specific

> technologies, otherwise Foo would get value 1 allocated and Bar would get 32768 allocated ... I don't get the issue.



> > Foo and Bar are technologies. They don't get TLVs.

> > But for Foo we want the "Fridge-temperature" TLV so we assign value 1 for that TLV. We genuinely believe that only Foo will ever care about the temperature of the fridge.

> > Now, along comes Bar. Bar also wants to know the temperature of the fridge and would like to simply use the same TLV. But it is allowed. So a new TLV must be assigned from the registry (presumably 2).

> > Oh wait, here is the Humbug switching technology, that *also* cares about fridge temperatures.



> > See my point?









Thanks



Fatai