Hi Ketan, Thanks for the update.
> On Sep 2, 2022, at 9:16 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. Good point. But, doesn’t that suggest that if we’re going to annotate the registry anyway, it should be annotated to indicate applicability for each sub-TLV type? That would clean up the presentation from Y/N/X to just Y/N per column. It would add a lot more columns but we don’t pay by the column. :-) If there’s some reason this wouldn’t be valuable that’s OK but I’d like to understand what makes Router Link and L2 Bundle Member need special treatment that the other sub-TLVs don’t need. Thanks, —John _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
