Hi Chris, I don't see much value in merging, most of the content describes encodings which are different, per protocol, Wrt registry - please let us know which draft you'd want to request the new registry.
Thanks! Cheers, Jeff On 5/15/18, 11:33, "Lsr on behalf of Peter Psenak" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: Hi Chris, On 15/05/18 10:54 , Christian Hopps wrote: > > Hi Les, > > I was going over the 2 SR-MSD documents (IS-IS and OSPF) just wondering > how viable it would be and if we should combine them. > > In any case doing the diff highlighted a couple issues in the IS-IS > version. > > Issue: Under both the Node and Link sub-tlv's the MSD type (1?) is not > actually mentioned, only the "MSD value", if one was pedantic it would > mean that regardless of the type the value was always the same, > certainly not what is intended. :) > > Issue: The OSPF version adds text about what to do in the presence of > multiple instances of the same TLV. This highlighted the fact that the > IS-IS draft doesn't do this, but also doesn't talk about there only > being 1 allowed. > > Maybe Issue: We've got 2 drafts creating the same sub-[-sub]-tlv MSD > type registry. I fully agree that we should only have one registry, but > it's interesting that we'll have 2 publications that create and > reference it. Also, where does this registry go in IANA? There are > distinct IS-IS, OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 pages that contain the IANA registries > for each protocol. Should we create a new shared LSR or IGP page? Anyway > this might be a reason to combine the 2 documents. there is one already: https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml I agree that we need registry to be created in only one of the documents and have other reference it, unless we merge these two drafts. thanks, Peter > > While somewhat inelegant we could probably avoid any need to re-Last > Call if the combination was basically a cut and paste operation. > > Thanks, > Chris. > > Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> writes: > >> This is a minor editorial revision to make the draft consistent w >> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-12. >> >> Les >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Lsr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected] >>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:49 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Cc: [email protected] >>> Subject: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-11.txt >>> >>> >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>> directories. >>> This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF. >>> >>> Title : Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using IS-IS >>> Authors : Jeff Tantsura >>> Uma Chunduri >>> Sam Aldrin >>> Les Ginsberg >>> Filename : draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-11.txt >>> Pages : 9 >>> Date : 2018-05-10 >>> >>> Abstract: >>> This document defines a way for an IS-IS Router to advertise multiple >>> types of supported Maximum SID Depths (MSDs) at node and/or link >>> granularity. Such advertisements allow entities (e.g., centralized >>> controllers) to determine whether a particular SID stack can be >>> supported in a given network. This document only defines one type of >>> MSD maximum label imposition, but defines an encoding that can >>> support other MSD types. >>> >>> >>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd/ >>> >>> There are also htmlized versions available at: >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-11 >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd- >>> >>> 11 >>> >>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-11 >>> >>> >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >>> submission >>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >>> >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lsr mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lsr mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > . > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
