Tony – In this context I don’t find the use of a registry of value. The primary issue for me for these fields is not managing the bit assignments but understanding the functionality – and for that I need to look at the document(s) which have that definition. A registry in these cases provides little value and adds process and a possibility for inconsistency.
But, I am not expecting that there is anything I can say to change your opinion – nor vice versa. So I appreciate that you have made your POV clear and the reasons for it – and I am not trying to change your opinion. I started this thread because I did not think a change in WG policy should be made solely based on a single document review comment from one individual – even one as highly respected as Alvaro. Thus far we have a handful of opinions – I am hoping more members of the WG will respond to the thread and then we can proceed appropriately. Les From: Tony Li <tony1ath...@gmail.com> On Behalf Of Tony Li Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 8:24 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com>; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensi...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; John Scudder <j...@juniper.net>; Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>; lsr-cha...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] When is an IANA Registry Required Les, IMO, there is no need for registries for the first category. The WG has been alive for over 20 years, defined many new TLVs with flags fields, and I am not aware of any confusion – so if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. With all due respect Les, you appear to operate with an eidetic memory of all things IS-IS, so I think that you discount the confusion that the rest of us live in. If a field has values defined in two documents, then there’s confusion. Even just finding both is a challenge. Regards, Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
