Tom, Sure. We can add similar wording on that.
thanks. - Naiming > On Jan 6, 2018, at 4:12 AM, t.petch <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
