Hi,
07 version of MSD draft published about 2 weeks ago states IANA allocations: Following values have been allocated by IANA: Value Description Reference ----- --------------- ------------- 23 Node MSD This document Value Description Reference ----- --------------- ------------- 15 Link MSD This document Hope this clarifies Thanks, Jeff On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 08:11 Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Les, > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) < > ginsb...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Folks – >> >> >> >> >> >> The conflict for SRMS Preference sub-TLV in >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-13#section-3.4 >> has already been noted and has been eliminated in the new version of the >> IS-IS SR draft which I expect to publish tomorrow. Note that although the >> IS-IS SR draft was given early allocation of some code points, a couple >> more sub-TLVs have been defined since then and these values have not yet >> been assigned by IANA. SRMS preference was one of them – though at the time >> of the writing of the version which added this the early allocation for MSD >> had not yet happened. >> > > Fine - but this is the exact issue with having "suggested" values that > aren't allocated in drafts. > I am really not happy with such text. I have been pushing and happy to > approve early allocations. > > >> Alia - I believe the MSD draft already is using the code points which >> have been assigned by early allocation – so I do not know what further >> update you believe is required in that document. >> >> ??? >> > > In the IANA section, it should refer to the values as allocated - not > suggested or potential. > > >> Les >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Alia >> Atlas >> *Sent:* Thursday, December 14, 2017 7:01 AM >> *To:* Harish R Prabhu <harish.r.pra...@gmail.com> >> *Cc:* draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensi...@ietf.org; >> isis-wg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-...@ietf.org >> *Subject:* Re: [Isis-wg] TLV conflict >> >> >> >> Hi Harish, >> >> >> >> Please take a look at >> >> >> https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml#isis-tlv-codepoints-242 >> >> where it is clear that draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd has an early >> temporary registration for type 23. >> >> >> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-02 should be updated to clearly state >> the IANA allocations that have already happened. >> >> >> >> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-13 MUST be updated to clearly >> state the IANA allocations >> that have already happened for it (e.g. values 2 & 19) and to STOP >> SQUATTING on already allocated >> code-points. >> >> >> >> Thank you for bringing this to our attention! >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Alia >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Harish R Prabhu < >> harish.r.pra...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> While going through the I-Ds pertaining to SR attributes, it was found >> that the following 2 TLVs have been assigned the same Type number >> >> SRMS Preference Sub-TLV : >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-13#section-3.4 >> >> Node MSD Advertisement : >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-02#page-4 >> >> Both these sections talk about different sub tlvs under >> router_capabilities TLV, but type value assigned is 23 for both. >> >> Request to address this. >> >> Thanks, >> -- >> Harish R Prabhu >> Bangalore, India. >> mailtp:harish.r.pra...@gmail.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Isis-wg mailing list >> Isis-wg@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg >> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
