> On Mar 11, 2020, at 10:38 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Chris -
>
>
>>
>> Do you think we should get rid of the "used in" columns in the IS-IS TLV and
>> sub-TLV registries? The documents that define those TLVs and sub-TLVs
>> already indicate which PDUs and TLVs they go in, so why do we need that
>> info in the registry?
>>
> [Les:] The difference for me is that the definition of sub-TLVs associated
> with the related set of TLVs is scattered across multiple RFCs. The
> additional information in the registry allows us to find this information in
> one place.
> Here, there is only one relevant IS-IS draft on this technology (SRv6). If
> the set of behaviors which can be advertised in IS-IS changes, then an
> additional IS-IS document (or a bis) will be written - and it likely would be
> required for other reasons.
>
> We still may not agree - but I hope we at least understand each other better.
Is the SR network programming document expected to respin a -bis for adding a
behavior?
Anyway, unless someone else thinks this is important, I guess we can just
revisit it when the next SR End behavior gets added and we're faced with
re-spinning this document, the OSPF companion document, and whatever other
protocols support documents for advertising the new behavior, in order to
support it (rather than e.g., it just going directly in a base document or a
combined protocols document and updating a couple registries).
Thanks,
Chris.
[as WG member]
> Les
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
