Re: [Gen-art] IETF Last Call Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-01

[[e-mail] (Dale R. Worley)]

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]> writes:
> Thanx for your detailed review. I have elected to copy the WG on my
> reply as you also sent a copy of your review to the WG.

I'm not sure if it is formally specified, but it seems to me that a
Gen-Art review really should be copied to the WG.

> It therefore has to be considered whether making many of the
> changes you suggest might unintentionally suggest a substantive change
> where none is intended.

Of course, my comments are only a review.  Looking over them again, none
seem to technically critical; the ones with technical content are
improving the explanations of features that people (seem to be)
implementing correctly now.  So I don't see any reason to object to
minimizing changes from RFC 4971.

> [Les:] You refer here to the extended TLVs defined in RFC 7356
> (pretty good find for someone who is not supposed to be an IS-IS
> expert :-) ).

I looked at the type codepoint registry, and there were values over 255
(though unassigned), which was inconsistent with the text of
draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis.  So it was just a matter of tracking down
what defined the alternative format.

Dale