In preparation for WG adoption and IANA early code point allocation, I suggest that we rename the “Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV Metric Registry” to the “Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV Metric Type Registry” to avoid confusion as to whether we are defining the actual metrics here. I know that in the contexts of the drafts, it is clear but the registries are going to be on their own. Additionally, while protocol TLV types should not be shared between protocols, it seems this registry could be common and placed in our "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" registry.
Finally, the OSPF version has a typo in section 8.2. The last two types should be 2 and 3. o 0 - Reserved o 1 - Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group Sub-TLV o 1 - Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group Sub-TLV o 1 - Flexible Algorithm Exclude-All Group Sub-TLV Also, how so the authors feel about combining the drafts? I know the IS-IS version has had more discussion and wouldn't want to hold it up if there is a possibility. I don't feel strongly one way or another. Thanks, Acee _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
