Hi Bruno,
> > However, it is not the job of this draft to resolve existing problems in > every single TLV in IS-IS. > > I would argue that this is not an existing problem, but a new problem created > by this document. So it would seem fair for this document to address the > problems it creates As Les has already pointed out, the problem already exists and has for a long time. It will continue to exist even without this document. > 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. > > I understand your point. Yet that issue has been raised by a significant > percentage of external reviewers of this draft. > May be a reasonable middle ground would be for this document to specify the > key of the few (sub) TLVs for which the existing definition may be ambiguous > (e.g. TLV 22 as already done in the draft). Then someone will object that we were not thorough and that we have to do all of them, whether obvious or not. Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
