Thanks Les, Acee and John for suggestion on protocol format definition, I agree to have two separate protocol format for ISIS and OSPF and will add addition pages to make these clear.
-Qin -----邮件原件----- 发件人: John Scudder [mailto:j...@juniper.net] 发送时间: 2022年8月27日 3:33 收件人: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> 抄送: draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-supp...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org 主题: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-09 Les, thanks for the followup, and the sanity-check. > On Aug 26, 2022, at 3:04 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Rather than do what John suggests below (have two lengths in the encoding), > please define distinct formats for each protocol. > This should be done for the KEY-ID sub-TLV as well. > This is not only consistent with the behavior of each protocol, it is > consistent with what has been done in RFCs 5088/5089. > > Using the same sub-TLV code point across both protocols is fine since we > constrain it to sub-TLVs under the PCED advertisement – but please - protocol > specific sub-TLV format definitions always. This makes good sense to me. It will take another page or two in the draft, but will make it more readable and implementable, IMO. Thanks, —John _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
