I have the following concerns about the approach proposed by this draft:
* Suppose the information to be carried by the Extended IS Reachability (type 22) (in Example 4.1) is larger than 255. Does it mean the recipient will receive 2 TLVs (both with the Type 22) in one LSA? For legacy routers, the second TLV (Type =22) might overwrite the first TLV. * Isn't it more straightforward to have a new TYPE value for carrying the extra information beyond the 255 bytes? So, the legacy routers can ignore the TLVs with the unrecognized types. Therefore, I don't support the WG adoption, unless those issues are resolved. Linda From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Yingzhen Qu Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 11:24 AM To: draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-...@ietf.org; lsr <lsr@ietf.org> Subject: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023) Hi, This begins a WG adoption call for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv: draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-04 - Multi-part TLVs in IS-IS (ietf.org)<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv/> Please send your support or objection to the list before December 9th, 2023. An extra week is allowed for the US Thanksgiving holiday. Thanks, Yingzhen
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
