Bruno, We agree that interoperability is paramount.
However, it is not the job of this draft to resolve existing problems in every single TLV in IS-IS. If nothing else, that would turn this document into more of an encyclopedia than it already is. That is simply not practical and not in keeping with how the IETF works. Scalability dictates that issues with specific TLVs should be handled in documents that are specific to the TLV. Regards, Tony > On Aug 6, 2024, at 3:36 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Thanks Les for your reply. > Please see 1 comment inline [Bruno] > > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 8:53 PM > To: Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; > Yingzhen Qu <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: lsr <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; lsr-chairs <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: [Lsr] Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv (7/1/2024 - > 7/15/2024) > > CAUTION : This email originated outside the company. Do not click on any > links or open attachments unless you are expecting them from the sender. > ATTENTION : Cet e-mail provient de l'extérieur de l'entreprise. Ne cliquez > pas sur les liens ou n'ouvrez pas les pièces jointes à moins de connaitre > l'expéditeur. > > > Ketan – > > Thanx for the support. > Responses inline. > > From: Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 9:56 AM > To: Yingzhen Qu <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: lsr <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; lsr-chairs <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: [Lsr] Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv (7/1/2024 - > 7/15/2024) > > Hi All, > > I thank the authors for the work on this draft and support its publication. > This work was very much needed for the enablement of new feature sets in ISIS > networks and the specification will aid interoperability. > > My only "grudge" is something that I have brought up previously on this draft > [1] and perhaps there may still be some interest in the WG/authors to take > care of them? > > 1) Mandate that the non-key part is identical in all the parts and if not > recommend that the value in the first part is taken. Or, say something about > handling this condition than saying "error and out of scope". > > [LES:] The authors discussed this aspect. > What we decided was that the scope of this draft was to clearly define the > generic aspects of multi-tlv – not to discuss the peculiarities of any > specific codepoint. > With that in mind, Section 4 – and specifically the examples provided – is > meant only to illustrate what a “key” is. > There is considerably more that could be said about each specific codepoint – > but we believe that is out of scope for this document. > > > 2) Since the early versions of the draft, a lot of effort has been put on > cataloguing TLV/sub-TLVs and their applicability for MP. From there, it is > only one more step to actually specify the "key" and "non-key" parts of TLVs > (where this is not done already) in an appendix section. This is important > for interoperability. The draft today covers two of the most prominent TLVs > but does not cover the others. > > [LES:] Again, the intent of this document is to clearly describe the generic > Multi-TLV mechanism – not to discuss the specifics of each codepoint. To do > so would expand the scope of the document beyond any reasonable boundaries. > For example, in the case of Neighbor TLVs (such as TLV 22), there are a wide > variety of implementation strategies. > Some implementations send only LinkIDs all the time. > Some implementations send endpoint addresses (when available) and not Link > IDs. > Some implementations send endpoint addresses and Link IDs. > All of these options are valid – but may impact interoperability depending on > the “generosity” of the receivers. > > [Bruno] I think that interoperability is important, especially for a link > state IGP. > If interop depends on the “generosity” of the receivers, why not specifying > (I mean mandating with MUST) the level of generosity which is required for > interop (well I mean “for things to work”) > > Thanks, > --Bruno > > And some commonality is required – independent of Multi-TLV – in order for > two-way connectivity check to work correctly. > > It is not in the scope of this document to include such a discussion – and > the use of Multi-TLV does not introduce new issues in this regard. > This is why we restricted ourselves to only discussing “what a key is” in the > examples. > The discussion – even for the two examples - is not exhaustive and is not > meant to be. > > If there is a significant interoperability issue with a particular codepoint, > some other document will have to be written/updated to address that. > > Les > > That said, I won't hold this document if I am in the rough on this. > > Thanks, > Ketan > > [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/qQkeAHnw2qjrGoySbES4EVafgY4/ > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 11:39 AM Yingzhen Qu <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hi, > > This email begins a 2 week WG Last Call for the following draft: > draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-01 - Multi-part TLVs in IS-IS > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv/> > > Please review the document and indicate your support or objections by July > 15th, 2024. > Authors, > > Please indicate to the list, your knowledge of any IPR related to this work. > > Thanks, > Yingzhen > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu > ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
