I really like the way the RFC 4940 OSPF registries is a one stop shop and has all the bit flags for both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 that can be referenced for all RFCs.
Nice!! Great sanity check and helps when reading RFCs as well as I think for IETF protocol development adding new flags or updating bit values in new drafts that you are seeking the correctly documented truth to know what to add or change in your proposed IANA early allocations. I am changing my position and agree it is a good idea to have the bit flags IANA registry sanity check and also good for not on operators but vendors implementations of codepoint and bit flags so they get it right. Is all of what is covered in the RFC 4940 also covered in the IANA OSPF links below. https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xhtml https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml If all the bit flags are covered in the IANA links is there really a need for an RFC to that lists all the IANA flags as well, two sources of the truth. So then the only gap is ISIS IANA codepoints cover all the TLVs, Sub TLVs but now I think we just need a consensus to agree to bit flag IANA registries. https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml I am all for it as their is definitely value in the proposition. Gyan On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 9:30 PM Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> wrote: > 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> > *Date: *Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 12:44 PM > *To: *Tony Li <tony...@tony.li> > *Cc: *Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com>, " > draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensi...@ietf.org" < > draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensi...@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" < > lsr@ietf.org>, John Scudder <j...@juniper.net>, Christian Hopps < > cho...@chopps.org>, "lsr-cha...@ietf.org" <lsr-cha...@ietf.org> > *Subject: *RE: [Lsr] When is an IANA Registry Required > *Resent-From: *<alias-boun...@ietf.org> > *Resent-To: *Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com>, Yingzhen Qu < > yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>, Christian Hopps <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> *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 > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com <gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>* *M 301 502-1347*
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
