Hi Alia,

From: OSPF <ospf-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:ospf-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com<mailto:akat...@gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, August 11, 2017 at 10:42 PM
To: 
"draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-...@ietf.org>"
 
<draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-...@ietf.org>>,
 OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>
Subject: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06

As is customary, I have done another AD review of 
draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06.  First, I'd like to thank the authors for 
their work and the improvement.

I have one minor issue on the IANA section.

For the current FCFS space, I think it would be better to have "Specification 
Required" so that there's a place to look to understand what sub-TLVs are 
included.
If the WG is happy with FCFS, that is fine too.

I don’t have a strong opinion here. The goal is to be stingy for the code 
points that overlap the corresponding IS-IS registry (with a single octet type) 
and more liberal here. However, we’ve never gone all the way to FCFS before and 
“Specification Required” would seem more in line with other IGP registries.

I'm asking for an IETF Last Call and will put this on the telechat on Aug 31.

Thanks – hope to clear some more of these “almost ready" documents prior to 
next IETF.
Acee


Regards,
Alia
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

Reply via email to