[Nfd-dev] Clarification on TLV-TYPE

[Junxiao Shi]

Hi Damian

Allocating the same TLV-TYPE number to multiple applications does not
violate "TLV-TYPE SHOULD be unique at all nested level" recommendation.
For example, NLSR could use 233 to indicate "number of routing updates",
and NFD management could use 233 to indicate "remote FaceUri" (this is not
actual assignment). Since NLSR's struct is not nested within NFD
management's struct, the recommendation is not violated.

Yours, Junxiao

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:53 Damian Matthew Coomes (dmcoomes) <
dmcoomes at memphis.edu> wrote:

> All,
>
>
> I would like some clarification on the available TLV-TYPE numbers. Nick
> Gordon brought to my attention that the TLV document states "TLV-TYPE
> SHOULD be unique at all nested levels", found near the bottom of this
> page: http://named-data.net/doc/ndn-tlv/tlv.html. Does this mean that the
> range of TLV-TYPE numbers set aside for application use are shared across
> all applications? If so, I would like to point back to my earlier question:
> Is it concerning that NLSR assigns ~20 TLV-TYPE numbers for statistical
> purposes?
>
>
> Davide, I saw your response. I will take those alternatives into
> consideration if the above assignment is not allowed.
>
>
> Thank you for your help and advice,
>
>
> Damian
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/pipermail/nfd-dev/attachments/20170830/198b2513/attachment.html>