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

["Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" <Chris.Dearlove at baesystems.com>]

>> 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'.

So what? It's not the only non-RFC2460 TLV in the world either.

> Generally speaking, I don't think it's 
> constructive to ignore existence of already defined TLV mechanisms, 
> address encoding mechanisms and code availability.

Who says we did? In the case of TLVs, just having type, length
and value was insufficient. So we added what was needed, and
then added stuff to make it more efficient.

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************



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