I've been pondering this for a while. Les' pointer to 8918 is helpful. But I wonder whether the "key" to all this is the definition of "key". AFAICS, this is the first document to use the term in the ISIS context (do I have that right?). For example, if we look at RFC 5305 we see a clear definition of the fields that our section 3.2.1 lists, but the term key is not used.
Section 3 *does* start with an explanation... Some TLVs support advertisement of objects of a given type, where each object is identified by a unique set of identifiers. In this case the "key" which uniquely identifies a given object consists of the set of identifiers. Could we make this *even* more clear? It seems fine to me, but we need to make it clear to all readers. Perhaps... Some TLVs support advertisement of objects of a given type, where each object is identified by a unique set of identifiers that we call a "key". If the objects are advertised in separate instances of TLVs of the same type, the key identifies the object and indicates that the TLV is legitimate and not a duplicate. Just bringing rocks ☹ Cheers, Adrian -----Original Message----- From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> Sent: 21 February 2025 16:28 To: Tony Li <[email protected]>; Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> Cc: lsr <[email protected]> Subject: [Lsr] Re: [Last-Call] 答复: Re: 【Can you concatenate several pieces together without one "explicit key" to identify them belong to the same segment】Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-08 Robert - I am certain that Tony and I are in complete agreement - but I found his response a bit cryptic. So, to provide more context, RFC 8918 is relevant - particularly Section 3.3. HTH Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Li <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Tony Li > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 8:07 AM > To: Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> > Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; lsr <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] [Last-Call] 答复: Re: 【Can you concatenate several pieces > together without one "explicit key" to identify them belong to the same > segment】Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-08 > > > Hi Robert, > > > If a peer happens not to recognize content of a sub-TLV within the first or > > N- > th part of the multi part TLV what is the expected behaviour ... is it to stop > parsing any subsequent content of given MP-TLV or skip unrecognized sub- > TLV and keep trying to decode the rest of them if of course it can get the > length > of it correctly and move to the next one ? > > > The beauty of TLVs is that you don’t have to parse everything to make > progress. > > So you do. > > T > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
