Great – we’ll reserve time. Thanks, Acee From: Tony Li <[email protected]> on behalf of Tony Li <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 2:44 PM To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]> Cc: Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, lsr <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Handling multiple Extended IS Reachability TLVs for a link
Yes, we will. We’re still discussing about who will present. I can if there are no other volunteers. You’re welcome to put my name down for now. T On Jun 29, 2022, at 11:26 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Speaking as WG chair: Can someone present this at IETF 114? It seems like there more interest than most of the other agenda requests. Thanks, Acee From: Lsr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Tony Li <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 12:58 PM To: Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, lsr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Handling multiple Extended IS Reachability TLVs for a link Hi Ketan, On Jun 29, 2022, at 9:33 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Tony, No. It does not work. Take the following text from Sec 4. If this is insufficient sub-TLV space, then the node MAY advertise additional instances of the Extended IS Reachability TLV. The key information MUST be replicated identically and the additional sub-TLV space may be populated with additional information. The complete information for a given key in such cases is the joined set of all the carried information under the key in all the TLV instances. There is a normative MUST there, but the "key information" is unspecified. Without that information these rules would not be really useful for implementation, would they? They would if the implementors understood the intent and spirit. Perhaps that’s asking too much. I agree with the challenge of trying to catalog "keys" and "rules" on a per TLV/sub-TLV basis. Perhaps starting with the more widely used TLVs/sub-TLVs that are likely to exceed limits would be better than not covering any of them? Duly noted. We have had this comment before, we will definitely consider it. Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
