Hi Suresh, On 8/19/15, 10:31 AM, "Suresh Krishnan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hi Acee, > I checked out the changes in the new version (12) and they look good. >Thanks a lot for taking care of the changes. Only one pending comment >from me. I will send in a new review. > >On 08/19/2015 06:53 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >>> * IANA Considerations >>> >>> * The Opaque LSA Options types used by this document (7 & 8) seem to be >>> wrongly entered into the IANA registry and are pointing to >>> [draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] instead of this draft. It >>> is probably worth taking this up during the IANA check. >> >> No - these values do correspond to segment routing. This draft is a >> prerequisite that defines the OSPF extension mechanisms and creates the >> registry. > >I leave this to your discretion, but the IANA registry usually points to >the draft that defined the values and >draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions *does not* seem to be >defining them. > >Just to be very precise these are the values that I am talking about > >" > This specification updates the Opaque Link-State Advertisements (LSA) > Option Types with the following values: > > o 7 (IANA Early Allocation [RFC7120]) - OSPFv2 Extended Prefix > Opaque LSA > > o 8 (IANA Early Allocation [RFC7120]) - OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque > LSA Right - at one time these extensions were part of the OSPF SR draft. We split them out and made them generic. I’ll alert them along with the new OSPFv2 Prefix TLV Flags registry. Thanks, Acee >" > >and this is the IANA registry in question > >http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-opaque-types/ospf-opaque-types.xhtml# >ospf-opaque-types-2 > >Cheers >Suresh _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
