Tony,
inline plz.
On 02/06/2020 22:42, Tony Przygienda wrote:
Loa, fair points though I would say adoption is kind of a different
kettle of fish than early allocation.
yeah - but the point I made, modulo some small updates in the IANA
considerations I think the document is ready for wg adoption. And
really the updates in the IANA considerations is strictly not
necessary for wg adoption, but I prefer to have the IANA registries
in scope clearly pointed out.
RFC7120 does not seem to apply given ISIS registries are under expert
review (largely due to historical reasons AFAIS).
Yeah - you are right. I missed that, was to focused on the
requirements
in 7120.
I watch that with lots of interest since due to customer
discussions/(deployment) planning we request with experts early
allocation for
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-
reflection/
Yeah - you are requesting code points from registries where the
registration procedures are "Expert Review". But those are not early
allocation, they are permanent.
We have however the benefit of not needing any new registries.
Yes, that is a blessing, but for a new registry you can actually
capture
in the draft and populate it with code point values, the only thing is
that once you put a value in there it should not be changed.
Especially
if you know of early implementations.
For your draft the registries should be called:
Sub-TLVs for TLV 242 (IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV); and
Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141, 222, and 223 (Extended IS
reachability, IS Neighbor Attribute, L2 Bundle Member Attributes,
inter-AS reachability information, MT-ISN, and MT IS Neighbor
Attribute
TLVs)
(Don't blame me, I didn't name the registries :) ).
and both registries are found in the IS-IS TLV Codepoints namespace.
/Loa
thanks
-- tony
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 1:00 AM Loa Andersson <l...@pi.nu
<mailto:l...@pi.nu>> wrote:
Folks,
I have two questions on the early allocation.
RFC 7120 allows early allocation for two types of
The processes described below assume that the document in
question is
the product of an IETF Working Group (WG). If this is not the
case,
replace "WG chairs" below with "Shepherding Area Director".
draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy is an individual document, i.e. not a
product of a working group nor shepherded by an AD, and does not seem
to
meet the criteria for early allocation.
Also. draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy request that IANA create a new
registry, as far as I understand new registries can't be created
through
early allocation. It is hardly necessary.
The code points are requested from "the IS-IS TLV Codepoints
registry",
howver the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" is a name space with 14 different
registries. I think the the registry you want to allocated code point
from the "TLV Codepoints registry"
Since the document, at least I read it, well meet the criteria for
becoming a working document (minor update to the IANA section), I
think
that the easy way out is to start the working group adoption poll.
/Loa
On 02/06/2020 12:52, Tony Li wrote:
>
> Hi Amanda,
>
>> However, the IANA Considerations section is missing some
information.
>> How would we fill in the IIH, LSP, SNP, and Purge fields for
>> the
TLV
>> Codepoint registrations?
>
>
> We’ve addressed this in
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-06..
>
> Thanks,
> Sarah & Tony
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
--
My mail server from time to time has come under DOS attacks,
we are working to fix it but it may take some time. If you
get denial of service sending to me plz try to use
loa.pi.nu@gmail
Loa Andersson email: l...@pi.nu
<mailto:l...@pi.nu>
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
