Hi John, Thanks for your review.
I think it is a good idea to indicate and capture applicability as part of the IANA registry. This will ensure compliance for sub-TLVs defined in the future. An updated version of the draft that captures these changes is posted for your and WG review/comments: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-05 Since the OSPFv3 registry is shared for all OSPFv3 Extended LSA TLVs' sub-TLVs, we need another flag X for those sub-TLVs that are not associated with the Router Link TLV. Thanks, Ketan On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 6:44 PM John Scudder <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Authors, > > Thanks for this short, clean, document. I have no nits (!!) and only one > substantive comment to discuss. > > In Figures 2 and 3, you annotate all the sub-TLVs from the relevant OSPFv2 > and OSPFv3 registries, to indicate whether those sub-TLVs are, or are not, > applicable in the context of the L2 Bundle Member Attribute Sub-TLV. It > seems to me that it would be helpful to update the registries themselves, > to add a column with this information. In addition to making the > information easier to find, it would also reduce the risk of future > document authors forgetting to specify this information. (It’s all very > well for your spec to say that future documents MUST supply this > information, but such mandates on future document authors are hard to > enforce consistently, absent some process. Updating the IANA registry would > provide that process.) > > Related, the OSPFv3 registry now has three additional code points, beyond > those you annotate. I guess you should update Figure 3 to specify Y/N for > code points 30-32. > > Thanks, > > —John > > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
