Tom - I have submitted V1 to address all of the comments from you that I deemed possible/desirable to do. Please see responses inline as to the unaddressed issues.
> -----Original Message----- > From: tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com> > Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 4:55 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; John Scudder > <j...@juniper.net> > Cc: cho...@chopps.org; draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919...@ietf.org; lsr- > cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-00.txt> (IS-IS > Application- > Specific Link Attributes) to Proposed Standard > > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> > Sent: 20 April 2023 17:21 > > Tom - > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv- > codepoints.xhtml > > At the very top it says: > > "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" > > <tp< > > John, Les > > Thank you for that, The URL does take me to just that but scrolling down the > IANA pages, I see it not; looking at the source, I see > <tr class="iana-protocol-group"> > <td colspan=3>IS-IS</td> > </tr> > which is what I see on the screen, no other title no notes, no references, > nothing but that is for another (web browser) day. > > Returning to my Obsessive-Compulsive review of the I-D: > > - the IANA registry has references to RFC8919 even for the registries created > by rfc8919bis. Should all the references be updated since the bis obsoletes > 8919? IANA may need telling to do this in my experience. [LES:] I added an instruction to IANA to update the RFC 8919 references. > > 7.2 > the I S - I S "TLV Codepoints Registry". > I see it in the > 'I S - I S Top-Level TLV Codepoints' registry > > 7.3 > IANA has created a new registry titled > "Sub-sub-TLV Codepoints for > Application-Specific Link Attributes" under the "IS-IS TLV > lacks the initial > I S-I S > which given the nature of LSR and he number of registries I think significant > > also, the IANA page has > 17 temporary assignment flex-algo-bw-con > which seems an issue of timing and procedure as to where it should be > mentioned > [LES:] Doing so would create a dependency between this document and draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con - which I do not think is appropriate. I chose not to do this. > 7.4 > Likewise, the IANA page has > bit 3 Flexible Algorithm RFC9350 > which the I-D lacks > [LES:] For the same reason as previous comment, I chose not to do this. Les > 7.5 > you got there before me but IANA starts the name with I S I S > which as above I think significant in this context. > > Tom Petch > > > > Les > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com> > > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 9:05 AM > > To: John Scudder <j...@juniper.net> > > Cc: cho...@chopps.org; draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919...@ietf.org; lsr- > > cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-00.txt> (IS-IS > Application- > > Specific Link Attributes) to Proposed Standard > > > > From: John Scudder <j...@juniper.net> > > Sent: 20 April 2023 13:45 > > To: tom petch > > Cc: cho...@chopps.org; draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919...@ietf.org; lsr- > > cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-00.txt> (IS-IS > Application- > > Specific Link Attributes) to Proposed Standard > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > Thanks for catching this, sorry I missed it in my review. The registry is > > now > > named "IS-IS Sub-TLVs for Application-Specific SRLG TLV", so, > > > > OLD: > > 7.5. Sub-TLVs for TLV 238 Registry > > > > IANA has created a new registry titled "Sub-TLVs for TLV 238" under > > the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry to control the assignment of sub- > > > > NEW: > > 7.5. Sub-TLVs for IS-IS Sub-TLVs for Application-Specific SRLG TLV Registry > > > > IANA has created a new registry titled "IS-IS Sub-TLVs for Application- > > Specific SRLG TLV" under > > the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry to control the assignment of sub- > > > > Authors, can you please make the revision when you publish the next > > version? > > > > <tp> > > John > > > > I had not got that far:-( My comment was meant to be that there is nothing > I > > can see on the IANA website with the title > > IS-IS TLV Codepoints" > > a reference which appears in several places. I think that there are other > > inconsistencies but decided to work top down and see what I came up with > > and this was at the top. > > > > Tom Petch > > I think hat > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > -John > > > > > On Apr 20, 2023, at 6:41 AM, tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of The IESG <iesg- > > secret...@ietf.org> > > > Sent: 19 April 2023 21:01 > > > To: IETF-Announce > > > Cc: cho...@chopps.org; draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919...@ietf.org; > > j...@juniper.net; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org > > > Subject: [Lsr] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-00.txt> (IS-IS > > > Application- > > Specific Link Attributes) to Proposed Standard > > > The IESG has received a request from the Link State Routing WG (lsr) to > > > consider the following document: - 'IS-IS Application-Specific Link > > > Attributes' > > > <draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-00.txt> as Proposed Standard > > > > > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > > > final > > > comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > > > last-c...@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-05-03. Exceptionally, comments > may > > > be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning > > > of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > > > > > <tp> > > > " IANA has created a new registry titled "Sub-TLVs for TLV 238" under > > > the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry to control the assignment > > > " > > > > > > When I go to the IANA website I see lots of I S - I S under which it > > > might > be > > but not that particular one. What is it by another name? > > > > > > Tom Petch > > > > > > Abstract > > > > > > > > > Existing traffic-engineering-related link attribute advertisements > > > have been defined and are used in RSVP-TE deployments. Since the > > > original RSVP-TE use case was defined, additional applications (e.g., > > > Segment Routing Policy and Loop-Free Alternates) that also make use > > > of the link attribute advertisements have been defined. In cases > > > where multiple applications wish to make use of these link > > > attributes, the current advertisements do not support application- > > > specific values for a given attribute, nor do they support indication > > > of which applications are using the advertised value for a given > > > link. This document introduces new link attribute advertisements > > > that address both of these shortcomings. > > > > > > This document obsoletes RFC 8919. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The file can be obtained via > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft- > ietf- > > lsr-rfc8919bis/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!H--jQXaGBKyUh1Ji8- > > 0I02I_lK5h848xPJFQqyeHphMG17NBjPpu__ABg4byU4qG2GbHgH- > 66efP5g$ > > > > > > > > > > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Lsr mailing list > > > Lsr@ietf.org > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr__;! > > !NEt6yMaO-gk!H--jQXaGBKyUh1Ji8- > > > 0I02I_lK5h848xPJFQqyeHphMG17NBjPpu__ABg4byU4qG2GbHgH8CiymDMA > > $ _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
