Disclaimer: I am not an author of the flex-algo draft. However, the text regarding "scope" of the FAD sub-TLV is in the context of the flooding scope of the containing Router Capability TLV (as defined in RFC 7981). There we have two scopes defined:
1)Area/level scope (S-bit clear) Such information MUST NOT be leaked between levels 2)Domain-wide scope (S-bit set) Such information MUST be flooded across the entire IS-IS flooding domain - which means it is leaked between levels (UP and DOWN as appropriate) Both "area/level" and "domain-wide" are terms used in RFC 7981. The full paragraph from the flex-algo draft reads: "The IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV has an area scope. The Router Capability TLV in which the FAD Sub-TLV is present MUST have the S-bit clear." I think this is correct - but if the authors wanted to update this to "area/level" I would not object. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 12:15 PM > To: Chris Parker <ch...@networkfuntimes.com> > Cc: lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Two small potential typing errors in > draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo > > Hi Chris, > > > On Feb 13, 2023, at 2:56 PM, Chris Parker <ch...@networkfuntimes.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > First time poster here. Sincere apologies if I make any mistakes in > etiquette. I work at Juniper, and am mailing on suggestion of Shraddha > Hegde, after a conversation about draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo. > > > > Having read the draft, I think I've found two tiny things to fix. > > > > The first is a typo: In the text "The following values area allocated by > > IANA > from this registry for Flex-Algorithms", I think it should say "are", not > "area”. > > This is definitely a typo. > > > > > The second is a point of clarification in the text "The IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV > > has > an area scope". I think perhaps this should be "level scope", not "area > scope". > > I can’t seem to find similar IS-IS terminology. I’ll defer to the authors. > However, you’d be correct for OSPF. > > > > > For example, imagine a level 2 backbone that contains four areas. I would > imagine the intended behavior is actually to flood this sub-TLV through the > entire level 2 backbone, rather than just to the other routers in the > particular > area that the originator happens to reside in? > > > > Hopefully these are useful changes. Apologies once again if I've made any > errors in this process. > > Speaking as WG Co-Chair - This is definitely the right process and we look > forward to your future reviews of LSR documents!!! > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > > > Best regards > > Chris Parker > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Lsr mailing list > > Lsr@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
