Subject: Minor question on RRO in RSVP-Te

From: Ganesh Murugesan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 11:32:19 -0500

Hi,

I had a minor question (more on the wording) in
draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-09.txt on RROs.

The draft on Page 33 says
	The contents of a RECORD_ROUTE object are a series of
variable-length data items called subobjects. Each subobject has its own
Length field. The length contains the total length of the subobject in
bytes, including the Type and Length fields. The length MUST always be a
multiple of 4, and at least 4.
Since the three types of subobjects defined under RRO are the IPv4, IPv6 and
the label recording subobjects, shouldn't the last line say strictly greater
than 4, since all the three types have length greater than 4.
thanks
ganesh

---

From: David Charlap <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:46:54 -0500

Ganesh Murugesan wrote:
> variable-length data items called subobjects. Each subobject has its
> own Length field. The length contains the total length of the
> subobject in bytes, including the Type and Length fields. The length
> MUST always be a multiple of 4, and at least 4.
> Since the three types of subobjects defined under RRO are the IPv4,
> IPv6 and the label recording subobjects, shouldn't the last line say
> strictly greater than 4, since all the three types have length
> greater than 4.

There have been ERO/RRO subobjects in prior drafts (now expired) that
were length 4 (the "LSP Termination" subobject, which was deleted fron
the draft in version -05).

It is possible that we may define subobjects of length 4 in the future
as well.

What purpose is served by changing the wording so that we are no longer
free to define a new subobject of length 4?

-- David