Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I am balloting DISCUSS because I believe the specification is not clear enough. (1) The document recommends (5 separate times) that an ID "SHOULD be identical to the value advertised" in an existing TLV. If the other TLV is advertised, when is it ok for the values not to be the same? Why is this action recommended and not required? Should the receiver of these TLVs take any action if the values are not identical? (2) ยง3.1: The requirement for the Router ID to be unique within the flooding scope of the LSP has been removed. Please help me understand why this change is ok. If the Router ID can be used to identify "the router who generates the inter-AS reachability TLV", not requiring unique values seems to go counter to that idea. _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
