Subject: draft-ietf-mpls-rsvpte-attributes-04.txt

From: mike shand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 11:01:37 +0100

I'm conducting a "routing directorate" review of the above draft and I 
have a couple of questions regarding the format of the TLVs.

1) In section 3, under length, it says that the padding to take the value 
field up to a 4 byte boundary is NOT included in the length.
However in section 3.1 para 3 it says that the length field is always a 
multiple of 4 bytes regardless of the number of bits set.

I'm having difficulty reconciling those two statements.

2) The TLV defined above in section 3 is of the normal design in that the 
length is the length of the value field only and does not include the type 
and length fields. However, the TLV defined 7.2 has a different form where 
the length includes the type and length fields.

Is there some rationale why the same protocol uses both types of encoding?

And one final question. In section 9 it says in paras 5 and 7 that LSRs 
SHOULD be prepared to receive this object in any order....

should that be a MUST, or is SHOULD acceptable? It would appear to be 
non-optional.

A couple of typos I spotted.

section 6 Inheritance rules. End of first para.

"belongs to the same switching capability class THAN the triggering LSP".

section 7.3.1 Subobject presence rules, last para

nearest to the STOP of the stack)

Thanks.

	Mike