Re: ForCES TLV size

I have to say, personally, the way to fragment TLV body is the worst solution among others for the issue. This really makes things unnecessarily complicated. 

I'm ok with all the other solutions actually. 

thanks,
Weiming

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <[email protected]>

> The solution which Joel and I proposed is to be able to break down an
> object exceeding the max length into fragments. This addresses the issue
> of not caring whether the object grows to some large issue in the
> future.

> Again, we are only being pre-emptive as opposed to thinking this is an
> issue given current knowledge.
> The more i think about it for the sake of progress, the more i am
> leaning towards us just documenting this "issue" in the draft and  
> closing it.
> If folks would agree to this i think Joel and I should throw out the
> proposal we put forward.
> 
> cheers,
> jamal
> 
> On Fri, 2007-17-08 at 20:18 +0300, Evangelos Haleplidis wrote:
> > Greetings to the List,
> > 
> > I have a small proposition to offer in regard to the situation with the
> > Length of the TLV.
> > 
> > It is a patch, and not a clean solution, but I'm sending it as an idea,
> > nontheless.
> > 
> > It can be applied to all TLV's.
> > 
> > If someone wants to send a TLV of size larger that may fit in the 16bits
> > Length, then it will set the Length field to zero, and the next 8 bytes will
> > be the length. So this a special case TLV, that the length is embedded on
> > the message.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Evangelos Haleplidis.