Michael -
Thanx for your review/feedback. As regards "CPAxxx", I am not familiar with that. 😊 I will say that IANA Considerations section is following RFC8126 guidelines/examples - and I don’t see "CPAxxx" anywhere in that document. We could, however, improve things by using "TBA1", "TBA2" etc. both in the body of the draft and in the IANA Considerations section. That would help match each TLV definition with the codepoint request in the IANA Considerations section. Les >-----Original Message----- >From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]> >Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 9:57 AM >To: Liyan Gong <[email protected]> >Cc: rtg-dir <[email protected]>; draft-ietf-lsr-l2-bu <draft-ietf-lsr-l2-bundle- >[email protected]>; lsr <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: draft-ietf-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote-id-05 early Rtgdir review > > >Thank you. I'm very happy with the changes. > >I'm updating the review in a moment. >Where you've written: > > TBA (to be assigned from the "IS-IS Sub-TLVs for TLVs > Advertising Neighbor > Information" registry). > >You might want to instead use CPAXXX, as Carsten has done in many places, >and then you list that "number" in yout IANA Considerations. >This connects better to the right IANA registry. CB writes in one I-D: > > CPA is short for "code point allocation", and is a reliable search > key for finding the places that need to be updated after allocation. > >I thought he had an I-D on "CPA" concept, but I didn't find it.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
