Hi,
It may be a little bit late to raise this question as the draft has been
through all of the last call process and has even been edited by the RFC
editor (I expect to see RFC 5440 published very soon).
Since we want to carry information encoded as closely as possible to RSVP-TE
encodings, we definitely want to use sub-objects (such as in the ERO). It
might make the PCEP implementation more simple to use only TLV encoding, but
it would make the integration of PCEP into the RSVP-TE-capable PCC more
complex.
The alternative would be to move all TLVs to be in sub-object format. Could
have done this. But we didn't. Maybe the TLV format is a little more obvious
for recursive nesting.
Adrian
----- Original Message -----
From: "S.SenthilKumar" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 4:35 AM
Subject: [Pce] Reg TLVs and Sub-Objects
Dear All
Draft 19 of PCEP has defined 3 TLVs that can appear inside the object. In
addition, It is referring to other RFCs (RSVP-TE - RFC3209, RFC3473 and
RFC3477) which uses the term Sub-Objects.
Type or the Object Type is more or less same
In some Sub-objects, Only 15 bits are allocated to Sub-object Type
In all TLVs (Defined in Draft 16), Type is always 16 bits
The meaning of Length field is different between TLV and Sub-object
Length field in TLV is length of Value alone and can be Zero indicating
that no Value is present
Length field in Sub-Object is the length of the whole sub-object and it
starts from 4.
I feel that TLV defined in Draft 19 can be made as same as the sub-object.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Thanking you,
Best regards,
S.SenthilKumar
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
