On October 19, 2021 at 9:54:20 AM, Francesca Palombini wrote:
Francesca: Hi! Thanks for the review! ... > > 7. ----- > > > > Section 11.1.1 > > > > FP: It sounds like a bad idea in general to have to rename the registry > > every time a TLV needs to be added to the registry... Maybe the wg and the > > AD should consider renaming the registries so not to have this sort of > > dependency. (I understand that this is a low priority comment, but still, > > it feels wrong to put in titles what would fit really well in a registry > > itself). This very much applies to Section 11.6 as well: the registry's > > name with the hierarchy of TLVs as part of the name feels like a really > > bad idea. That is typically data that goes into registries. > > ##PP > I followed the process we used in the past and consulted with the > Designated Experts we have. I'm open to rename the registry to whatever > we agree on. Changing the name of the old registry is going to be more > difficult ( Section 11.1.1), but for the Section 11.6 maybe we should > start with a shorter name and skip the TLVs: > > "sub-sub-TLVs for SRv6 End SID and SRv6 End.X SID" > > > FP: Thank you for considering, and yes, this is more a comment to Alvaro, the > wg and the experts rather than you authors. I brought it up here because this > made me notice it. My suggestion is to have the working group work on a > document fixing this. Might be annoying but the right thing to do, IMO. To close the loop on the list. I made the DEs aware of your comment and asked them to consider possible changes (which would affect the whole TLV registry, not just the sub-registries mentioned in this document) that the WG may consider. Thanks!! Alvaro. _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
