Alvaro - I don’t find the referenced draft relevant to this case.
Our difference of opinion has to do with the function of a codepoint registry. Registries are created as a place to both document existing codepoints and to be updated when the need for additional codepoints arises. There is no benefit or need (IMO of course) for an RFC which initially created the registry to be marked as "updated" when new codepoints are added to the registry - which is really all that is happening here. Is there anything in RFC 7370 that states or implies that the name of the registry is not subject to change? Is there anything in RFC 7370 that states or implies that the set of TLVs under the purview of the registry is not subject to change? Why are either of these cases functionally any different from adding a new sub-TLV codepoint to the registry? I do agree that this is not worth the time being spent on it. So, you have my input. I leave it to the ADs/WG chairs/IESG review to close this issue. Thanx for listening. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 6:55 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; Acee Lindem (acee) > <a...@cisco.com>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppse...@cisco.com>; John > Scudder <jgs=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> > Cc: John Scudder via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6- > extensi...@ietf.org; Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>; lsr- > cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > Subject: RE: John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6- > extensions-14: (with COMMENT) > > Les: > > Hi! > > In this case the name is being changed, a new column is added, and all > the existing code points are updated in light of the new column. > > I realize this may not be enough for you. Instead of all of us > discussing this specific case, we should focus our energy on clearly > defining what “Updates” means — there’s a proposal that could be a > starting point [1]. > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kuehlewind-update-tag > > > > On May 19, 2021 at 12:33:27 AM, Les Ginsberg wrote: > > > The only legitimate reason to update an older > > document would be if we are actually changing > > in some way one or more of the existing codepoints > > already defined in the registry. That is not > > happening here. _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
