Greg –
Thanx for the quick turnaround.
Section 4.5 (revised text)
The capability to support RTM on a particular link (interface) is
advertised in a new sub-TLV which may be included in TLVs advertising
Intemediate System (IS) Reachability on a specific link (TLVs 22, 23, 222,
and 223).
The format for the RTM Capabilities sub-TLV is presented in Figure 5
0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...
| Type | Length | RTM | ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...
Figure 5: RTM Capability sub-TLV
… (Remainder unchanged)
Section 7.5 (revised text)
7.5. IS-IS RTM Capability sub-TLV
IANA is requested to assign a new Type for RTM capability sub-TLV
from the Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223 registry as
follows:
+------+-------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+
| Type | Description | 22 | 23 | 141 | 222 | 223 | Reference |
+------+-------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+
| TBA3 | RTM | y | y | n | y | y | This document |
| | Capability | | | | | |
|
+------+-------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+
Table 5: IS-IS RTM Capability sub-TLV Registry Description
Thanx.
Les
From: Greg Mirsky [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 10:36 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Loa Andersson; [email protected]; TEAS WG; [email protected]; Isis-wg;
[email protected]; [email protected]; TEAS WG
Chairs; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time
Hi Les,
attached are diff and the updated version -14. Would be much obliged to hear
from you if the updates are according to your suggestions and address your
comments.
Kind regards,
Greg
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Loa -
The change for IS-IS encoding to utilize a sub-TLV of TLV 22 et al to advertise
RTM capability is a better solution than the previous proposal and this has my
support.
However, there are some details as regards the proposed sub-TLV that should be
revised.
1)Rather than use a fixed 16 bit field for the flags I suggest you utilize the
encoding style introduced in RFC 7794 (see Section 2.1) which allows for a
variable length flags field. This addresses two issues:
o You need never worry that the size of the flags field will be too small
for future extensions
o It minimizes the number of bytes required to be sent
The latter point is something IS-IS has always been more conservative about
than OSPF because of the fixed size of an LSP set which can be advertised by a
single router.
2)In the IANA considerations you have limited the sub-TLV to being used in TLV
22 only, but there is no reason to do so. This does not allow MT to be
supported and it needlessly prevents use of the sub-TLV by the RFC 5311
extensions (however unpopular those may be). I can understand why the sub-TLV
may not be useful in TLV 141, therefore I suggest the table in Section 7.5 be
revised to be:
| Type | Description | 22 | 23 | 141 | 222 | 223 | Reference |
+------+-------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+
| TBA3 | RTM | y | y | n | y | y | This document |
+------+-------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+
i.e. "y" for all but TLV 141 (in case the ASCII art doesn't translate well in
your mailer).
You should also remove the reference to RFC 5305 in Section 4.5 as it is too
limiting. Simply referencing the IANA registry
http://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml#isis-tlv-codepoints-22-23-141-222-223<http://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml%23isis-tlv-codepoints-22-23-141-222-223>
should be sufficient. All necessary references can be found there.
3)An editorial correction:
Introduction 3rd paragraph:
s/ Althugh/ Although
Les
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OSPF [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On
> Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 8:02 AM
> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; TEAS WG;
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Isis-wg
> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
> TEAS
> WG Chairs; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> Subject: [OSPF] Working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time
>
> Working Groups,
>
> This is to initiate a two week working group last call in four working groups
> on
> draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-13.
>
> The MPLS working group has done an earlier working group last call and a
> request for publication has been made.
>
> The changes to the document were such that we decided to do a new
> working group last call and extend it to MPLS, TEAS, OSPF and IS-IS.
>
> There are three major changes between the version of the document for
> which publication was requested are:
>
> (1) that section 7 " One-step Clock and Two-step Clock Modes" has been
> moved up to become section 2.1.
> (2) that a sub-TLV for TLV 22 instead of TLV 251 is used to RTM
> Capability when IS-IS used advertise RTM capabilities
> (3) BGP-LS has been added as a RTM capability advertisement method
>
> A side-by-side diff between version -12 and -13 is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-13
>
> Please send your comments to the mpls wg mailing list
> ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>), if
> you are not subscribed to the mpls wg list, send to "your own"
> working group mailing list, and we'll make sure they are posted to the MPLS
> wg list.
>
> There were one IPR disclosure against this document.
>
> All the authors and contributors have stated on the working group mailing list
> that they are not aware of any other IPRs that relates to this document.
>
> This working group last call ends February 13, 2017.
>
>
> /Loa
> MPLS wg co-chairs
> --
>
>
> Loa Andersson email:
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> Senior MPLS Expert [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
