Adding the bit registries when there is extension for the defined flag field is helpful for reviewing the related IETF documents.
For newly defined flag field, such policy can also apply considering there maybe no bit extensions for some flag field. And, should this action be discussed in more broader range? I think this is one general issue, not specific to LSR WG. Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom From: lsr-boun...@ietf.org <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Friday, March 19, 2021 1:15 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; Tony Li <tony...@tony.li> Cc: Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>; Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com>; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensi...@ietf.org; John Scudder <j...@juniper.net>; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] When is an IANA Registry Required Speaking as WG member: Hi Les, My opinion is there is no harm and some advantage in having IANA registries for unique IGP protocol bit flag fields. For the existing fields that don’t have registries, there is no burning requirement to go back and define an IANA registry until such time as that flag field is extended. Note that for OSPF, we did add these registries in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4940.txt (thanks to Kireeti). Thanks, Acee From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsb...@cisco.com <mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com> > Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 12:44 PM To: Tony Li <tony...@tony.li <mailto:tony...@tony.li> > Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com <mailto:aretana.i...@gmail.com> >, "draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensi...@ietf.org <mailto:draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensi...@ietf.org> " <draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensi...@ietf.org <mailto:draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensi...@ietf.org> >, "lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org> " <lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org> >, John Scudder <j...@juniper.net <mailto:j...@juniper.net> >, Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org <mailto:cho...@chopps.org> >, "lsr-cha...@ietf.org <mailto:lsr-cha...@ietf.org> " <lsr-cha...@ietf.org <mailto:lsr-cha...@ietf.org> > Subject: RE: [Lsr] When is an IANA Registry Required Resent-From: <alias-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:alias-boun...@ietf.org> > Resent-To: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com <mailto:a...@cisco.com> >, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com <mailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> >, Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org <mailto:cho...@chopps.org> > Resent-Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 12:44 PM 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 <mailto:tony1ath...@gmail.com> > On Behalf Of Tony Li Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 8:24 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com <mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com> > Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com <mailto:aretana.i...@gmail.com> >; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensi...@ietf.org <mailto:draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensi...@ietf.org> ; lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org> ; John Scudder <j...@juniper.net <mailto:j...@juniper.net> >; Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org <mailto:cho...@chopps.org> >; lsr-cha...@ietf.org <mailto: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
