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
