Is this really that big of an issue? This seems to be taking a lot of the WGs time at this point for a fairly trivial thing.
Thanks, Chris. > On Apr 21, 2021, at 12:11 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Tony - > > Because this is shared between OSPF and IS-IS the related registry is in a > different location. > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#link-attribute-application-identifiers > > as defined in > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8919.html#section-7.4 > > For me, this falls into the same category as > https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml#prefix-attribute-flags > . > It is a general purpose flags field that was expected to be updated by a > variety of otherwise unrelated documents and so we defined a registry for it. > This category of flags field was never under discussion - I thought you and I > had agreed on this explicitly early on. > > Les > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tony Li <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 7:47 AM >> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> >> Cc: Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; lsr- >> [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Guidance for IANA flags field registry creation. >> >> >> Les, >> >>> I did (an admittedly casual) review of such fields in all TLVs defined >>> during >> the existence of the IS-IS/LSR WGs - which covers over 20 years. I did not >> find >> a single occurrence where the flags field ever got extended. >> >> >> draft-ietf-isis-te-app defines the Application Specific Link Attributes TLV. >> That includes the Standard Application Identifier Bit Mask and defines three >> bits. >> >> draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo extends this with one bit for FlexAlgo. >> >> So there is one example. >> >> Tony >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
