Thanks Peter - Agree the registry needs to be updated. Acee On 12/14/17, 3:52 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppse...@cisco.com> wrote:
>Hi Acee, > >On 14/12/17 01:39 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> Please provide allocations for the code points in >> draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10.txt: >> >> OSPF Extended Link TLVs Registry > >more precisely, these should be allocated from "OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV >Sub-TLVs" registry. The text in the draft should be updated as well to >reflect the correct registry name. At this point it says "OSPF Extended >Link TLVs Registry", which would suggest it is from a different, top >level TLV registry. > >Also I see that value 5 has been taken by RFC8169 already. > >thanks, >Peter > >> >> i) Link-Overload sub-TLV - Suggested value 5 >> >> ii) Remote IPv4 address sub-TLV - Suggested value 4 >> >> iii) Local/Remote Interface ID sub-TLV - Suggested Value 11 >> >> OSPFV3 Router Link TLV Registry >> >> i) Link-Overload sub-TLV - suggested value 4 >> >> BGP-LS Link NLRI Registry [RFC7752] >> >> i)Link-Overload TLV - Suggested 1101 >> >> Thanks, >> >> Acee >> >> On 12/13/17, 2:57 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com> wrote: >> >>> Acee Lindem has requested publication of >>>draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10 >>> as Proposed Standard on behalf of the OSPF working group. >>> >>> Please verify the document's state at >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload/ >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OSPF mailing list >> OSPF@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >> . >> > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
