Re: ForCES TLV size

Jamal,

I think we can close this issue accordingly as there were no further
objections raised.

Thanks,
Patrick

Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> Weiming,
> 
> So if i heard you right - you would rather see no solution more of a
> textual explanation, yes?
> 
> The solution is implementable - i went over our code and did not see any
> issues with parsing. 
> 
> cheers,
> jamal
> 
> On Mon, 2007-20-08 at 00:00 +0800, Wang,Weiming wrote:
>> Jamal， 
>>
>> By providing a flag to extend the meaning of flags in one TLV over 
>> to other TLVs is not a good solution. I'm not sure if you'v considered 
>> carefully enough that this method does not induce possible parsing 
>> problem for TLVs? I'm just worried that the Path-Data structure has 
>> already been a complex body where even path-data TLV can be nested. 
>>
>> Fenggen is in my implementation team．I think this solution is not we 
>> expected when Fenggen raised this question. If anyone has ever been 
>> doing the implementation completely, I'm afraid he will never be happy 
>> with such design.
>>
>> Comparatively, we can more live with no change.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Weiming
>>
> 
> 
> 

-- 
    Dr. Patrick Droz                  | [email protected]
    IBM Zurich Research Laboratory    | http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~dro
    Saumerstrasse 4                   | Tel. +41-44-724-85-25
    CH-8803 Rueschlikon/Switzerland   | Fax. +41-44-724-85-78