[Lsr] Re: It's time to find one general solution to Big-TLV problem Re: IETF 121 LSR Slot Requests

[Aijun Wang]

Hi, Ketan: I have read your mail. If you mean that currently there are only two IS-IS TLVs(Type 22 and Type 135) needs to be extended, then all the contents of section 8.2 should be removed. And the sentence in the abstract of this document——“ This document codifies the common mechanism of extending the TLV content space through multiple TLVs.”SHOULD be replaced with “This document codifies the “what constitutes a key” for two IS-IS TLVs.” After the above changes, I will support its forwarding. Aijun Wang China Telecom On Oct 25, 2024, at 10:30, 【外部账号】Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> wrote:  Hi Aijun, Since you bring up vagueness and interoperability, please refer to my suggestion here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/U3ImXcT5yDgvFCb3VLa5t9C4As4/ HTH Thanks, Ketan On Fri, 25 Oct, 2024, 4:32 am Aijun Wang, <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> wrote: Hi, Acee and Ketan: Then, the proposed MP-TLV draft should state clearly that it clarifies the “what constitutes a key” for two TLVs only and such definition(“what constitutes a key”) for other TLVs are left for further studies or clarification. Even done so, the declaration of “MP-TLV capabilities” has still some vagueness: because such declaration is IS-IS TLV type independent, the communication peers can’t decide the other side has which one of the MP-TLV supported? The interoperability issues will be arose also. Given there are potential other big IS-IS TLVs are emerging, the road to solve such problems will be an dead end. Aijun Wang China Telecom > On Oct 25, 2024, at 00:57, 【外部账号】Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Speaking as WG member: > > I agree totally with Ketan and, at least in my case, stems from the fact that I’m less familiar with IS-IS than OSPF. > > If there are WG participants who have both the IS-IS expertise and bandwidth, this might be a good topic for an informational draft. > > We certainly shouldn’t stale this work as documenting the vagaries of IS-IS wasn’t within original purpose or scope of this document. > > Thanks, > Acee > >> On Oct 24, 2024, at 12:28, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> FWIW those were the reasons why I am supporting publication of this >> document after raising the same question originally. >> >> I think those that are still raising Qs about the "lack of clarity" on >> keys should look over the specific TLVs/sub-TLVs and identify what is >> not clear. I did that for a good chunk (what I felt were important and >> with potential to "grow large") to satisfy myself and I encourage >> others that have doubts to do the same. >> >> If there is something really unclear, we can solve those individual >> issues rather than stalling this work. >> >> Thanks, >> Ketan >> >>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 9:27 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >>> <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >>> >>> Changwang – >>> >>> >>>

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org