On May 20, 2018, at 12:33 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Chris- > > I am happy to see that the scope of this discussion is narrowing. I think the > scope of what your proposing is much more appropriate for discussion - but we > are in still not in agreement.
This has never changed for me, so I'm glad that we are understanding each other
better. :)
>> I agree! IGP algorithm is a great example, and I'm glad you agree that it
>> was a
>> good idea. The content of the "Sub-TLVs of the FAD TLV" are in the same way
>> shared by both protocols. The types and the values are defined exactly the
>> same for both protocols. The *only* difference is the encoding of the type
>> (and length) value, the semantics are the same.
>>
> [Les:] There is a qualitative difference between having a common registry to
> identify a protocol independent attribute and having a common registry to
> define a protocol scoped type value.
>
> I appreciate that in this case we are defining a new container (FAD) which
> will have sub-containers that are applicable to both protocols. And I agree
> that it seems very hard to imagine any future sub-container which would not
> be applicable to both protocols. And I also agree that assigning the same
> type value to each sub-TLV for both protocols (now and in the future) is
> practical - and perhaps even desirable.
Great. BTW, nice renaming to "container" here.
> Nevertheless, the "type" which identifies the sub-container is a protocol
> scoped attribute. The fact that we could use a common number in this case
> does not mean it is conceptually correct to consider the value as protocol
> independent.
>
> Let's please keep the definitions in registries which have the correct scope
> - which in the case of TLV/sub-TLV types is per/protocol.
I fail to see any difference from the IGP algorithm case, which you agreed with.
SR Algorithm container:
- distributed as a TLV inside Router Information Opaque LSA
- distributed as a sub-TLV inside Router Capability TLV
IGP Algorithm: The container content which is defined using a common registry.
Thanks,
Chris.
> Les
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
