IS-IS IANA Registry Experts,
The authors of “IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) in IP Networks” have
requested code point allocation for the IS-IS code points in the draft. Please
evaluate the request and, if accepted, assign values from the respective
registries.
Thanks,
Acee
__
Is this really that big of an issue? This seems to be taking a lot of the WGs
time at this point for a fairly trivial thing.
Thanks,
Chris.
> On Apr 21, 2021, at 12:11 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> wrote:
>
> Tony -
>
> Because this is shared between OSPF and IS-IS the related registry is in
Tony -
Because this is shared between OSPF and IS-IS the related registry is in a
different location.
https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#link-attribute-application-identifiers
as defined in
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8919.html#section-7.4
For me, thi
Les,
> I did (an admittedly casual) review of such fields in all TLVs defined during
> the existence of the IS-IS/LSR WGs - which covers over 20 years. I did not
> find a single occurrence where the flags field ever got extended.
draft-ietf-isis-te-app defines the Application Specific Link A
Chris -
I don’t mean to argue the point. If you are not actually inviting
discussion...OK.
But since you say:
" After some experience with the guidance, we could then choose to make it
or some variation, the policy if that was still needed."
I will provide you with this datapoint.
I did (an a
Hi Les,
As stated in the guidance, it would be better for the IANA registry to be
created by the document that creates the field. If there is a reasonable
possibly of extension, we don't see any reason not to create a registry. It's
not like IANA registries are a scarce commodity.
Thanks,
Ac
Hi Les,
This isn't a proposal, it is the guidance we have come up with based on what we
read in the WG discussion.
We were asked to make this call so as to unblock the srv6 document, and so we
did.
I’m not sure how we officially document this. It *is* meant to be revisited
after gaining some
Chris/Acee -
Thanx for putting this proposal together.
As I have previously stated, I prefer no registries at all for this case. But
if we are to have registries, I much prefer Tony Li's proposal:
When a potentially shared field is created, the defining document specifies the
name of a future
