This is eminently sensible. As I previously noted, this is not as hard as
some people are trying to make it. If clarifications are needed, the MP-TLV
draft is not the place for them.
On Thursday, October 24, 2024 at 07:31:12 PM PDT, Ketan Talaulikar
<ketant.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Aijun,
Since you bring up vagueness and interoperability, please refer to my
suggestion here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/U3ImXcT5yDgvFCb3VLa5t9C4As4/
HTH
Thanks,Ketan
On Fri, 25 Oct, 2024, 4:32 am Aijun Wang, <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> wrote:
Hi, Acee and Ketan:
Then, the proposed MP-TLV draft should state clearly that it clarifies the
“what constitutes a key” for two TLVs only and such definition(“what
constitutes a key”) for other TLVs are left for further studies or
clarification.
Even done so, the declaration of “MP-TLV capabilities” has still some
vagueness: because such declaration is IS-IS TLV type independent, the
communication peers can’t decide the other side has which one of the MP-TLV
supported? The interoperability issues will be arose also.
Given there are potential other big IS-IS TLVs
are emerging, the road to solve such problems will be an dead end.
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
> On Oct 25, 2024, at 00:57, 【外部账号】Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Speaking as WG member:
>
> I agree totally with Ketan and, at least in my case, stems from the fact that
> I’m less familiar with IS-IS than OSPF.
>
> If there are WG participants who have both the IS-IS expertise and bandwidth,
> this might be a good topic for an informational draft.
>
> We certainly shouldn’t stale this work as documenting the vagaries of IS-IS
> wasn’t within original purpose or scope of this document.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>> On Oct 24, 2024, at 12:28, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> FWIW those were the reasons why I am supporting publication of this
>> document after raising the same question originally.
>>
>> I think those that are still raising Qs about the "lack of clarity" on
>> keys should look over the specific TLVs/sub-TLVs and identify what is
>> not clear. I did that for a good chunk (what I felt were important and
>> with potential to "grow large") to satisfy myself and I encourage
>> others that have doubts to do the same.
>>
>> If there is something really unclear, we can solve those individual
>> issues rather than stalling this work.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ketan
>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 9:27 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>>> <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Changwang –
>>>
>>>
>>>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org
