Les
>From an operators perspective my take is what is important to be registered
as is what is required today for any protocol specification with IANA is
the TLV and Sub TLV codepoints that are allocated by the protocol
specification being designed. That is all that is requirement for any new
Hi, folks,
In this draft, MT-ID is resued as the control plane ID of VTN and advertise TE
attrributes for different VTNs. I think it is useful for carrier network, and I
support it to be adopted.
Best regards
Chen
李 晨 Li Chen
中国电信研究院 网络规划研究创新中心
电话：010-50902891/18910853955
Tony –
IMO, there is no need for registries for the first category. The WG has been
alive for over 20 years, defined many new TLVs with flags fields, and I am not
aware of any confusion – so if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
But, if the WG consensus turns out to be to create registries in such
Les,
> [Les:] The question here is whether there is a qualitative difference between
> two classes of bit fields.
That is indeed the key question. IMHO, there is not.
I don’t much care if a field is updated by a bis document or a related
document. Regardless of the cause, as soon as there
Tony -
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony Li On Behalf Of Tony Li
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 11:37 AM
> To: Alvaro Retana
> Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-
> extensi...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; John Scudder ;
> Christian Hopps ; lsr-cha...@ietf.org
>
> I don't know that you and I are getting anywhere. I know Robert also
> cares about this topic, I hope others do too.
I care.
It seems to me that we have registries where we have different documents
allocating values from the same space. This makes sense: we need to coordinate
things.
On March 17, 2021 at 12:25:25 PM, Les Ginsberg wrote:
> > In the extreme case anyone can make use of the bits, through the ISE
> > or a different SDO -- ideally we will be paying attention, but may
> > not. Sure, a registry doesn't stop implementations from squatting on
> > codepoints either
Alvaro -
Inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Alvaro Retana
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 7:04 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-
> extensi...@ietf.org
> Cc: John Scudder ; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org;
> Christian Hopps
> Subject: RE: When is an IANA
On March 16, 2021 at 6:24:22 PM, Les Ginsberg wrote:
Les:
Hi!
> But one thing I find missing in your response is some info on what problem
> YOU think needs to be addressed?
I simply think that the specifications are not complete without
guidance on how to use/assign the unused bits. I
Hi Les,
Perhaps I did not express my point clearly. My intention was not to say
that implementors *only* look at IANA codepoints. I said often not always
:) They sure look at RFCs too.
My point was that if I need to decode something - IANA gives me sort of
decode cheatsheet and reference to RFC.
10 matches
Mail list logo
