Christopher - Thanx for your thorough review. One response inline.
>-----Original Message----- >From: Christopher Inacio via Datatracker <[email protected]> >Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2026 6:25 AM >To: The IESG <[email protected]> >Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; >[email protected]; [email protected] >Subject: Christopher Inacio's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-l2-bundle-member- >remote-id-10: (with COMMENT) > >Christopher Inacio has entered the following ballot position for >draft-ietf-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote-id-10: No Objection > >When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >introductory paragraph, however.) > > >Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling- >ballot-positions/ >for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > >The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote-id/ > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >COMMENT: >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Thanks for the quick update, I'll remove my discuss. I believe there could be >slightly more clarity between the possibility of sending 0s as an identifier >vs. not advertising anything because the router doesn't know the remote ID. > >But as written, I believe this is implementable. > >~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- > >Thanks to Brian W. for the SECDIR review. > >Thanks to the authors for a clear (especially for the non-BGP audience) and >concise draft. > >I also support Med's comment about the diagram in section 5 and would >change >his comment to say that the field should be labeled `reserved` with a statement >as to how it should be transmitted (e.g. all zeros). > [LES:] IS-IS (unlike OSPF) does not pad TLV fields to a 32 bit boundary. Nor would it help if we did since TLVs are sent inside an LSP which has many TLVs - none of which are defined to start on a 32 bit boundary. So this comment is not applicable. The diagram has been updated as per Med's comment (i.e., removing the unnecessary portion of the bit numbers). Les > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
