Hi Tom, Thanks for the review, some replies inline,
On Dec 29, 2017, at 2:53 AM, t.petch <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: A couple of IANA thoughts on this I-D; "This document requests that IANA allocate from the IS-IS TLV Codepoints Registry a new TLV, " - Is there a particular range that this value should come from? NS> will add the range. - A note in s.2 asking that TBD be replaced by the value that IANA allocates might be useful for the RFC Editor. NS> will do. - Are the flag bits of this new TLV going to form a new registry? NS> it is not. - And a non-IANA thought - what does a receiver do if it receives more than one such TLV? NS> In section 2, it mentions "A sender MUST only transmit a single Reverse Metric TLV in a IS-IS Hello PDU.” "This document also request that IANA allocate from the link-attribute bit value for sub-TLV 19 of TLV 22." I struggled to parse this initially. Perhaps "This document also requests that IANA allocate a bit from the 'link-attribute bit values for sub-TLV 19 of TLV 22' registry. NS> OK. (That registry title is a bit of a mouthful compounded by the lack of Capitals in the title:-( The coupling between the request to IANA to allocate the bit and the actual definition in the body of the I-D is ... well, non-existent. You should have a something about the octet with a TBD2 (not a second TBD) in section 3.6, a TBD2 in the IANA actions and a request that this be replaced by RFC Editor by the value that IANA allocates. NS> will do. thanks. - Naiming Yes, a reader can deduce all this but the lack of precision is how mistakes are made IMO. RFC5209 has the sort of detail that I would expect. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Naiming Shen (naiming)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
_______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
