Hi Les,
On 31/03/2021 07:01, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
Alvaro/Peter -
In regards to:
...
906 12.5. Sub-Sub-TLVs for SID Sub-TLVs
908 This document requests a new IANA registry be created under the IS-IS
909 TLV Codepoints Registry to control the assignment of sub-TLV types
910 for the SID Sub-TLVs specified in this document - Section 7.2,
911 Section 8.1, Section 8.2. The suggested name of the new registry is
912 "Sub-Sub-TLVs for SID Sub-TLVs". The registration procedure is
913 "Expert Review" as defined in [RFC8126]. The following assignments
914 are made by this document:
[minor] In line with the name of other registries; suggestion:
"Sub-sub-TLVs for sub-TLVs 5, 43 and 44 (SRv6 End SID , SRv6 End.X SID
and SRv6 LAN End.X SID)".
##PP2
I find that confusing as the sub-TLVs 5 is a locator Sub-TLV, while
Sub-TLVs 43 and 44 are IS reachability sub-TLVs.
What about:
"Sub-Sub-TLVs for SID Sub-TLVs (SRv6 End SID, SRv6 End.X SID
and SRv6 LAN End.X SID)"
Most of the other registries include the number of the TLV. So I
think it would be good to remain consistent. Maybe we should ask the
current DEs: Chris, Hannes and Les.
I think this is an odd situation.
You have three new sub-TLVs:
SRv6 End SID sub-TLV(5) which is a sub-TLV of TLVs 27, 135, 235, 236 and 237
(only allowed in TLV 27)
SRv6 End.X SID(43) and SRv6 LAN End.X SID(44) sub-TLVs which are sub-TLVs of
TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141, 222 and 223 (allowed in all TLVs)
You propose to create a single registry common to all three of these sub-TLVs
to share codepoints for sub-sub-TLVs. This is motivated by the one defined
sub-sub-TLV SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV(1) which is applicable to all three
new sub-TLVs.
Such a registry (code points for sub-sub-TLVs associated with sub-TLVs in different parent TLVs)
has not been defined before. Closest we have come is the "Sub-sub-TLV Codepoints for
Application-Specific Link Attributes" which exists separately from " sub-TLVs of TLVs 22,
23, 25, 141, 222 and 223" but comes with the advisory:
"If a link attribute can be advertised both as a sub-TLV of TLVs
22, 23, 25, 141, 222, and 223 and as a sub-sub-TLV of the
Application-Specific Link Attributes sub-TLV defined in
[RFC8919], then the same numerical code
should be assigned to the link attribute whenever possible."
You could elect to do the same thing here i.e., create two new registries but
include a Note saying codepoints in the two should be the same whenever it
makes sense to do so.
Or, you could do something new and create a single registry even though the
grandparent TLVs are different.
I don’t have a strong opinion here, but if it is anticipated that most of the
sub-sub-TLVs would be shared then a single registry is easier to manage.
single one is preferred.
The name however becomes quite a mouthful - something like:
"sub-sub-TLVs for SRv6EndSID(5) (sub-TLV of TLVs 27, 135, 235, 236 and 237) and SRv6
End.X SID(43)/SRv6 LAN End.X SID(44) (sub-TLVs of TLVs 27, 135, 235, 236 and 237)"
I'm fine with that.
And you would need to create columns (analogous to the columns in existing
registries which have multiple parent TLVs) to show in which parents a given
sub-sub-TLV is allowed.
sure.
Peter
Les
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
