Naiming One follow-up comment inline
Tom Petch ---- Original Message ----- From: "Naiming Shen (naiming)" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2018 12:31 AM > 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.” I know it does, but I also know that we cannot rely on all implementations being perfect:-) Look at some other RFC (e.g. RFC5029) and you will find an action defined such as subsequent ones will be ignored, or perhaps that this should be treated as a fatal error or .. I suggest something similar here although have no strong views what the action should be. Tom Petch > "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
