Re: [manet] New definition of term 'TLV' in PacketBB

[Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu at gmail.com>]

Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
> > I think the term TLV (type-length-value) is overloaded by the
> > PacketBB
> spec:
>
> There are many uses of TLV in many places. Some are simple, some are
> more complicated. This one does the job it's intended to do.

But it's different than what rfc2460 calls a 'TLV'.

> You actually can't do that job with just a type, a length and a value
> as you then couldn't apply information to just some of the addresses
> in an address block. And that's essential.
>
> I'm afraid I don't find this particular criticism constructive, so
> I'm not going to discuss this point further.

Ok, I again went into MANET document debugging instead of contending 
just reading them :-( Generally speaking, I don't think it's 
constructive to ignore existence of already defined TLV mechanisms, 
address encoding mechanisms and code availability.

Alex


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet