Hi Acee,

On 11/04/18 22:36 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
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.


sure I can make that change.


Finally, the OSPF version has a typo in section 8.2. The last two types should 
be 2 and 3.

right, will fix it.

    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.

I'm fine both ways.

thanks,
Peter


Thanks,
Acee


_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to