Hi Ketan,
> On Jun 29, 2022, at 9:33 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Tony, > > No. It does not work. Take the following text from Sec 4. > > If this is insufficient sub-TLV space, then the node MAY advertise > additional instances of the Extended IS Reachability TLV. The key > information MUST be replicated identically and the additional sub-TLV > space may be populated with additional information. The complete > information for a given key in such cases is the joined set of all > the carried information under the key in all the TLV instances. > > There is a normative MUST there, but the "key information" is unspecified. > Without that information these rules would not be really useful for > implementation, would they? They would if the implementors understood the intent and spirit. Perhaps that’s asking too much. > > I agree with the challenge of trying to catalog "keys" and "rules" on a per > TLV/sub-TLV basis. Perhaps starting with the more widely used TLVs/sub-TLVs > that are likely to exceed limits would be better than not covering any of > them? Duly noted. We have had this comment before, we will definitely consider it. Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
