Subject: Using extended attribute length field

From: "Michael C. Cambria" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 22:44:21 -0400

draft-ieft-idr-bgp4-17 doesn't say to only use an extended attribute 
length when the length of the attribute is larger than what will fix in 
one octet.  Should it?

Is an implementation complient that uses a 2 octet length when one would 
suffice?

MikeC

---

From: Enke Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 20:47:25 -0700

> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 22:44:21 -0400
> From: "Michael C. Cambria" <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Using extended attribute length field
> 

No, it should not. You might want to read the IDR mailing list archive
on this topic.

> Is an implementation complient that uses a 2 octet length when one would 

Yes.

-- Enke

---

From: Mathew Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:27:19 -0400

> Michael C. Cambria <[email-masked]> [Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 10:44:21PM -0400]:
>

No.

>Is an implementation complient that uses a 2 octet length when one would 

<snip>

I would think so, yes... certainly, any robust implementation will accept
such length fields.

mrr