Hi Ketan,
> On Jun 26, 2026, at 3:29 AM, Ketan Talaulikar via Datatracker
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Ketan Talaulikar has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flex-algo-yang-11: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flex-algo-yang/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks to the authors and the WG for their work on their document.
>
> I have two meta topics which I would like to discuss.
>
> 1) The link-attr-op-mode knob is not clear since it is neither offering
> detailed description nor referencing the RFC 9479 subsections.
>
> choice link-attr-op-mode {
> default "legacy"; >>> Why is this the default? Is that coming from
I agree - in 2026, "app-specific" should be the default.
> RFC9479? leaf legacy {
> type empty;
> description
> "Only send legacy advertisements."; >>> What does this mean? Not
> send via ASLA but only legacy advertisements (sec 3) or send via
> ASLA with the L-bit (sec 4.2)?
> }
This has nothing to do with the L-bit and I'm not sure how you could even
interpret it that way.
This would mean that legacy advertisements are advertised as described in
section 6.1 or
RFC 9461. Please suggest text with which you would be happy.
> leaf transition {
> type empty;
> description
> "Send both application-specific and legacy
> advertisements."; >>> What does this mean? Is there a reference
> from the base RFC on how this is supposed to work?
> }
> leaf app-specific {
> type empty;
> description
> "Only send application-specific advertisements."; >>> If there is a
> compulsion to pick a default (I think there shouldn't be one?),
> then I would pick this one.
> }
I agree. We will change once you provide text.
> description
> "Link attributes mode. Default to legacy mode for
> backward compatibility.";
> }
>
> Based on my understanding of RFC9479, we can only think of an enablement knob
> for ASLA advertisements at global level. The L-bit is perhaps something to
> control under the interface config under isis-asla. It could also be global if
> there is a desire to support hierarchical config for just the app selection
> (SABM/UDABM) and the L-bit setting.
>
> 2) When new sub-sub-TLVs are introduced under ASLA sub-TLV or under FAD
> sub-TLV, how does the current structure make augmentation of the module easy
> and straightforward? I am not a YANG expert and hence I would like to
> cross-check.
You'd respectively augment the asla-sub-tlvs/asla-sub-tlv or
fad-sub-tlvs/fad-sub-tlv YANG lists.
Thanks,
Acee
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
