Re: [Lsr] Flex Algo merge work, IS-IS and OSPF FAD sub-TLVs

Hi Chris, Acee, On 18/05/18 17:45 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: On May 18, 2018, at 11:20 AM, Christian Hopps wrote: To clarify, I think the win here is with clear and concise specifications, and avoiding double definitions of what is supposed to be the same thing -- not

Re: [Lsr] Flex Algo merge work, IS-IS and OSPF FAD sub-TLVs

(I never saw Chris's original email either - perhaps it was sent during the period when delivery to the alias when compromised.) I am in full agreement w Acee - it is a VERY BAD idea to try to combine protocol TLV registries. There are many reasons for this - here are a few. 1)In IS-IS the

Re: [Lsr] Early Allocation Request for "IGP Flexible Algorithm"

Hi Alvaro, From: Alvaro Retana Date: Friday, May 18, 2018 at 11:19 AM To: Acee Lindem , IANA Cc: "lsr@ietf.org" Subject: Re: Early Allocation Request for "IGP Flexible Algorithm" Hi! This request is fine with me. Acee:

Re: [Lsr] Early Allocation Request for "IGP Flexible Algorithm"

Hi! This request is fine with me. Acee: yes, according to rfc7120, the AD has to approve early allocation requests for “IETF Review” registries. Alvaro. On May 17, 2018 at 4:15:48 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) (a...@cisco.com) wrote: The authors of the subject document have requested early

[Lsr] Flex Algo merge work, IS-IS and OSPF FAD sub-TLVs

Hi Chris, Somehow, I lost the mail below and was only able to retrieve it from the archive. Pardon my top posting. While I believe that sharing code points for values, e.g., IGP Algorithm Type, is a good idea, I don’t necessarily think it is a good idea to merge the TLV type registries. It