Hi Ketan, We are hoping to not be that detailed in this document. As soon as we become a catalog of LSPs, then the applicability of our statements is weakened with respect to TLVs that aren’t in the catalog.
What we’re trying to accomplish is to write some general rules that we all understand that apply uniformly across all TLVs that don’t specify their own overflow mechanisms. Does this work for you? Tony > On Jun 29, 2022, at 6:47 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello Authors, > > I was pointed to your draft while looking around for some clarifications on > how information for a single object can be split across multiple TLVs in ISIS. > > Having gone through your document, I believe it is very useful and I am glad > to see that you have taken on this work. > > While the problem is generic, there is some part of the solution that is not > generic - i.e. we may need to get into individual TLVs/sub-TLVs specifics. > > To take an example, the draft talks about "keys" and there is a challenge > that "keys" for certain objects are not formally specified in ISIS specs. > E.g., the "keys" for Extended IS Reachability would need to also include the > local/remote addresses and/or the local/remote link-IDs. > > I wanted to check if the authors of this document are planning to tackle > these aspects as well. > > Thanks, > Ketan > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
