Hi Acee, > On Sep 5, 2022, at 1:23 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > > First of all, I think this IANA OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLV specification, if > it is to be done at all, should be done in a separate draft.
I guess by “specification” you mean “registry reorganization”, right? I’m OK with that, though I think I will wait a little longer to see if other WG contributors want to weigh in. > When we originally created the registry for RFC 8362, the purpose was avoid > Sub-TLV code point collisions while affording maximum reuse of Sub-TLV > definitions. It was NOT to avoid reading the specifications in order to > determine everywhere a Sub-TLV is allowed. I agree that reading all the RFCs is (or should be) sufficient. My thoughts are as I mentioned in my earlier reply to Ketan — organizing the registry to reflect the restrictions imposed by the RFCs serves two possibly-useful purposes. First, it gathers the information in one place for quick reference. Second and more important, it reduces the chance that the author of a future spec might overlook the need to carefully specify where their sub-TLV can and can’t be used. > In fact, I don’t believe IS-IS had yet adopted this IANA practice when this > became a WG document in 2007. OSPFv3 Extended LSAs took some time to > standardize as we held it until there were implementations and there weren’t > implementations until Segment Routing offered a strong incentive. > > If this information is to be represented in the IANA registry, I’d stay away > from columns with Y’s and N’s. Note that Sub-TLVs can nested so conceivably a > given Sub-TLV could be used by other Sub-TLVs. Are there existing restrictions on the use of one sub-TLV within other sub-TLVs that would need to be captured, or are you just mentioning that for completeness? (Completeness is good of course.) If the latter, maybe one option could be a catch-all column, called something like “other restrictions on use” that can list other restrictions either in line or in a footnote with sub-bullets as you suggest. > Rather, one could list the Sub-TLVs with the individual usages and references > (if different from the creation reference) as sub-bullets. I can’t comment because I can’t quite picture what you’re describing, and how the registry would look? I guess if we do decide to either abandon the reorganization suggestion altogether, or to pursue it as a separate draft, then draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles should just stick to its existing approach of listing restrictions in their own subsections of the main spec, do you agree? Recall that we got here (in part) because it seemed strange to me to update the registry to list some restrictions, but not all of them. Thanks, —John _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
