Hi Chris,
On 10/03/2020 11:10, Peter Psenak wrote:
What's wrong with "If this behavior is advertised it MUST only be advertised in the TLV[s] as indicated
by "Y" in the table below, and MUST NOT be advertised in the TLV[s] as indicated by "N"
in the table below." or something like that.\
> On Mar 11, 2020, at 10:38 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> wrote:
>
> Chris -
>
>
>>
>> Do you think we should get rid of the "used in" columns in the IS-IS TLV and
>> sub-TLV registries? The documents that define those TLVs and sub-TLVs
>> already indicate which PDUs and TLVs they go in,
I looked at this again and the long Email thread and agree with Peter, Les, and
Joel that we don't need a protocol specific registry for the Endpoint behaviors
and associated SIDs.
Thanks,
Acee
On 3/11/20, 1:42 PM, "Lsr on behalf of Joel M. Halpern" wrote:
It does seem to me that using
It does seem to me that using a registry to capture the relationship
between the OSPF or IS-IS advertisement (TLV, sub-TLV, ...) and the SR
behavior (as defined in the NP registry and subsequent additions) is
useful. I would not want to have to respin the base draft to add
additional
> On Mar 11, 2020, at 10:38 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> wrote:
>
> Chris -
>
>
>>
>> Do you think we should get rid of the "used in" columns in the IS-IS TLV and
>> sub-TLV registries? The documents that define those TLVs and sub-TLVs
>> already indicate which PDUs and TLVs they go in,
Chris -
>
> Do you think we should get rid of the "used in" columns in the IS-IS TLV and
> sub-TLV registries? The documents that define those TLVs and sub-TLVs
> already indicate which PDUs and TLVs they go in, so why do we need that
> info in the registry?
>
[Les:] The difference for me is
etwork-programming.
>> Yes, but again, I wasn't talking about this.
>> Thanks,
>> Chris.
>> [as WG member]
>>> Les
>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
>>>> Sent: Tuesday
n Hopps ; Acee Lindem (acee)
; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensi...@ietf.org; Peter Psenak
Subject: Re: [Lsr] "Legal" endpoint behaviors [draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-
extensions-06.txt]
Peter Psenak writes:
Hi Acee,
On 09/03/2020 14:49, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Hi Peter, Chris,
I
On 10/03/2020 12:50, Christian Hopps wrote:
Peter Psenak writes:
Hi Acee,
On 09/03/2020 14:49, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Hi Peter, Chris,
I agree that a number of IS-IS IANA registries have this level of
specification. For example:
e-
> > From: Lsr On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 4:51 AM
> > To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
> > Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Christian Hopps ; Acee Lindem (acee)
> > ; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensi...@ietf.org; Peter Psenak
> >
> > Subje
; ; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensi...@ietf.org; Peter Psenak
>
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] "Legal" endpoint behaviors [draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-
> extensions-06.txt]
>
>
> Peter Psenak mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>> writes:
>
> > Hi Acee,
> >
> >
Peter Psenak writes:
Hi Acee,
On 09/03/2020 14:49, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Hi Peter, Chris,
I agree that a number of IS-IS IANA registries have this level of
specification. For example:
Chris,
On 09/03/2020 13:26, Christian Hopps wrote:
On Mar 9, 2020, at 6:36 AM, Peter Psenak
wrote:
Hi Chris,
On 07/03/2020 15:46, Christian Hopps wrote:
1) I think we should have an IANA registry instead of just a table defined in
section 10 of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-06.
Hi Acee,
On 09/03/2020 14:49, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Hi Peter, Chris,
I agree that a number of IS-IS IANA registries have this level of
specification. For example:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml#isis-tlv-codepoints-22-23-25-141-222-223
Hi Peter, Chris,
I agree that a number of IS-IS IANA registries have this level of
specification. For example:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml#isis-tlv-codepoints-22-23-25-141-222-223
Thanks,
Acee
On 3/9/20, 8:28 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Christian
> On Mar 9, 2020, at 6:36 AM, Peter Psenak
> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> On 07/03/2020 15:46, Christian Hopps wrote:
>> 1) I think we should have an IANA registry instead of just a table defined
>> in section 10 of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-06.
>> The registry could be
Hi Chris,
On 07/03/2020 15:46, Christian Hopps wrote:
1) I think we should have an IANA registry instead of just a table defined in
section 10 of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-06.
The registry could be cross-referenced by and to "SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors" for
each protocol carrying
Oops,
That was "Speaking as a WG member".
> On Mar 7, 2020, at 9:46 AM, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> 1) I think we should have an IANA registry instead of just a table defined in
> section 10 of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-06.
>
> The registry could be cross-referenced by and to "SRv6
1) I think we should have an IANA registry instead of just a table defined in
section 10 of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-06.
The registry could be cross-referenced by and to "SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors" for
each protocol carrying these behaviors (IS-IS, OSPFv3, ...). If/when new
behaviors
19 matches
Mail list logo
