Chris, Les, I wrote that code points "do not require adoption". That is accurate. A 'SHOULD' is not a 'MUST'. You don't get to change it into one. What I wrote originally was correct.
I respect the 'SHOULD' and the work the experts do, but the fact of the matter is that we have code, and it is going to ship regardless of adoption. At this point, I cannot stop it. So, this is really up to you. You can allocate, or we can squat. Waiting is out of the question. Your choice? Regards, Tony On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 9:56 PM Christian Hopps <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]
