Rob: Hi!
I just replied to your review of the OSPF document…making the same suggestion. :-) Thanks! Alvaro. On June 10, 2020 at 11:37:36 AM, Robert Wilton via Datatracker ( [email protected]) wrote: Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-isis-te-app-14: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-te-app/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not sure whether this should really be a discuss ... I raised a similar concern on the OSPF document as part of a discuss, and presume consistency is helpful. 4.1. Application Identifier Bit Mask UDABM Length: Indicates the length in octets (0-8) of the User Defined Application Identifier Bit Mask. The length SHOULD be the minimum required to send all bits which are set. User Defined Application Identifier Bits have no relationship to Standard Application Identifier Bits and are not managed by IANA or any other standards body. It is recommended that bits are used starting with Bit 0 so as to minimize the number of octets required to advertise all UDAs. In section 4.1, I think that the document should also add the sentence (taken from the previous paragraph) "Bits that are not transmitted MUST be treated as if they are set to 0 on receipt." Note, that I also think that this behaviour is implicitly required from the description of UDABM Length. Regards, Rob
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
