Ketan,
I've trimmed the conversation down to just the relevant points.
On 9/21/22 10:07 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
KT> This ID-nits warning is perhaps simply because the normative
reference is not from an IETF publication and so perhaps the tool is not
able to determine if that publication is "standards" or informational.
As far as the guidance from draft-kucherawy, I'll wait for our AD and
IESG to share their views - we'll do as indicated by the IESG.
OK
KT> If I understand your point, and I am paraphrasing, the idea is that
we add this document as reference on the OSPFv2/v3 code point registry
and in this document's IANA section we add guidelines for IANA to look
for whether the allocation request has specified the applicability to
the L2 Bundle Member Sub-TLV. So that acts as a checkpoint before future
allocations out of this registry. Is that correct?
Yes
So this is half-step
between the current state of the document and the suggested new document
that changes the registry organization.
I guess. If this hypothetical new document straightens things out
better, then this would simply cover anything that happens until that
new document is adopted, or in case that never happens.
Alternately, you could hold this document until that other one is ready.
One last thought: have you considered whether potential future updates
to the definitions to currently defined sub-TLVs could ever change
their
applicability?
KT> That would be very remote/unlikely IMO.
I suspect any time a change is made to the registry that
adds/replaces a reference to a document defining a sub-TLV, the newly
referenced document will need to "indicate applicability".
KT> Sure and this should be taken care of by the IANA checks when the
new document reference is updated in registry.
Yes.
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
