Subject: [Geopriv] Binary encoding of INT?

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:09:07 -0400

Looking at draft-rosen-geopriv-pidf-interior, it doesn't look to me as  
if it defines how you encode an INT element into a binary CAtype for  
DHCP.  Seems like this would be a good thing to have in order to  
maintain parity between the binary and XML forms?

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:20:02 -0500

>maintain parity between the binary and XML forms?

I've been saying all along in order to have this parity work, the new 
INT fields will have to be uniquely numbered.

In other words, instead of ONE CAtype=40 for all INT elements (with 
additive text identifying the element), you need to have separate 
numbers, which for TLVs, translate into separate type values -- 
otherwise, this doesn't translate into binary at all.

James

>_______________________________________________
>Geopriv mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:25:50 -0400

Yeah, I'll have to do that.

I guess I'll do a fixed one char string for B/A and a length/value for the
name.  

For the value, I could do it one of two ways: either another length/value,
or just the remaining length from the INT TLV.  Any suggestions from the TLV
crowd?

Brian

---

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 06:49:51 +0800

Brian's examples in the relative location document offer one possibility.  If the value has a separator, everything before the separator is label, everything after is value.

Brian used the vertical bar (|), but that would lead to escaping problems if you decided that types could use that character.  It's possible that invalid Unicode (0xff) could be used, or a reserved character (NUL, U+0000).  Ultimately, it doesn't matter.

I'm against any attempt to attach semantics to these - which adding specific CAtypes would  necessitate - that would defeat the purpose of the proposal.

--Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of James M. Polk
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2010 7:20 AM
> To: Richard Barnes; Brian Rosen
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Binary encoding of INT?
>