Hi Authors, WG, As part of my review of draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-12 I was looking at these documents and came up with a few comments that would otherwise become part of my AD review for ospfv3-srv6-extensions, so I thought I’d share them now.
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-19 is currently in RFC-EDITOR state so it may or may not be reasonable to make any changes, but I’m going to mention them below anyway. I’m sorry I didn’t notice this before we got through IESG review. draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-08 Section 2 defines the flags field in a way that (as per usual) conveniently happens to be identical to how the IS-IS document defines it. However, I don’t see any language in draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-08 saying that the IANA Registry from the IS-IS draft MUST be used for the assignment of flags for the OSPFv3 field. Shouldn’t you say this? Also, the registry should probably refer back to both (all three, if we include the BGP-LS one, but that's another story) specs that make assignments from it, shouldn’t it? So where the IS-IS document says, "This document requests a new IANA registry be created under the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry to control the assignment of bits 0 to 15 in the Flags field of the ISIS SRv6 Capabilities sub-TLV specified in this document (Section 2):" Maybe it should add something like “… as well as the corresponding field defined in Section 2 of draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-08.” (And maybe “and Section 3.1 of draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-12”?). It might be easier to drop that change into the IS-IS draft now, before it exits RFC-EDITOR state (if agreed of course) but we could also do it by patching the registry text in the OSPFv3 (and BGP-LS?) draft’s IANA section. Also, a minor point: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-19 uses inconsistent hyphenation for the protocol name — “ISIS” or “IS-IS”. My own preference is “IS-IS” as both more accurate and not as subject to conflation with other uses of “Isis”, but anyway please pick one and stick with it? I guess the RFC Editor will take care of this, but I apologize for not catching it during IESG review. (This also leads me to wonder why we even put this registry, that’s shared by two (three?) protocols, under the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry instead of under Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters, but given the publication stage we’re at it may not be worth trying to change that.) Thanks, —John _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
