Hi Peter, 

Ok - we'll decide during whether to merge during the WG adoption call. It would 
be a good LSR experiment for a combined draft if there are no significant 
differences between the protocols that would make a combined draft unwieldy. 

Thanks,
Acee



On 4/12/18, 3:35 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppse...@cisco.com> wrote:

    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