> On Mar 11, 2020, at 10:38 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Chris -
>
>
>>
>> Do you think we should get rid of the "used in" columns in the IS-IS TLV and
>> sub-TLV registries? The documents that define those TLVs and sub-TLVs
>> already indicate which PDUs and TLVs they go in, so why do we need that
>> info in the registry?
>>
> [Les:] The difference for me is that the definition of sub-TLVs associated
> with the related set of TLVs is scattered across multiple RFCs. The
> additional information in the registry allows us to find this information in
> one place.
> Here, there is only one relevant IS-IS draft on this technology (SRv6). If
> the set of behaviors which can be advertised in IS-IS changes, then an
> additional IS-IS document (or a bis) will be written - and it likely would be
> required for other reasons.
I believe you're saying that in the future we will have new documents (if you
don't respin) that define the legal behaviors to be advertised. And yet that's
how I read your first paragraphs reason for this info being justified for
sub-TLVs (where they are advertised being spread around multiple RFCs). I don't
see how they are different, which makes me think I am misunderstanding what
your saying.
I'm happy to move on from this surprisingly contentious ask, as we could always
back-add the registry in the next document that gets published.
Thanks,
Chris.
[as WG member]
>
> We still may not agree - but I hope we at least understand each other better.
>
> Les
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
