[Lsr] Re: Adoption of draft-many-lsr-power-group

Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:56:21 -0700

Expert hat on: I do not believe Les is raising the bar. We (reg experts) have followed the SHOULD advice rather consistently. We have always pushed for WG adoption first. It’s why I mentioned the order, adoption and then allocate, during the presentation. Yes, SHOULD is not MUST, but it’s also not MAY. :)

I think it’s worth giving the normal route a chance here before we look to the exceptional one. 

Thanks,
Chris.

On Jul 20, 2026, at 20:12, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote:


Les,

What I wrote is correct.  Please read what you quoted.  That's a SHOULD, not a MUST.

You don't get to raise the bar on a whim.

Tony


On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 6:36 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) - ginsberg at cisco.com <[email protected]> wrote:

Tony –

 

I don’t want to start an argument – just want to set the record straight.

 

https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml states:

 

“Note

For IS-IS registries and value ranges maintained via the "Expert

Review" [RFC8126] registration procedure, guidance for IESG-designated

experts can be found in [RFC7370].”

 

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7370.html#section-4 states:

 

“2.  The Designated Experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise

       from I-Ds that have already been accepted as Working Group

       documents or that are planned for progression as AD Sponsored

       documents in the absence of a suitably chartered Working Group.”

 

So what you say below is not correct.

 

   Les

 

From: Tony Li <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 8:50 AM
To: lsr-chairs <[email protected]>
Cc: lsr <[email protected]>
Subject: [Lsr] Adoption of draft-many-lsr-power-group

 

Hi,

 

I would like to formally request that we start an adoption poll of draft-many-lsr-power-group.

 

I would also like to formally request code point assignment for this document.  The relevant code points are all under "Expert Review" and do not require formal adoption before code point allocation.  We would greatly prefer not to squat on code point values if we do not have to.

 

Regards,

Tony

 

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to