Re: [Idr] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-11: (with DISCUSS)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

I see, just only putting TBD there created the confusion. May be it is better to put something more descriptory that echoes what is written in the emails.

I will anyway clear my discuss.

//Zahed

From: Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
Sent: den 24 augusti 2022 17:15
To: Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>; Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-11: (with DISCUSS)

To add to what Alvaro said ...

We put the suggested value in the IANA considerations for the DE and IANA review as part of our allocation request made a few weeks ago.

The body of the draft says TBD since the allocation has not yet actually been made (so as not to give the impression of squatting on code points).

Both this TBD and the IANA section will be suitably updated by us (authors) once allocation is done.

Thanks,
Ketan


On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 8:15 PM Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
On August 24, 2022 at 10:30:37 AM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker wrote:


Zahed:

Hi!

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks for working on the this specification.
>
> I would like to discuss if Flexible Algorithm Unsupported sub-TLV type should
> be TBD when it is suggested to 1046 in section 5?

Yes, that needs to be updated.  The registry requires Expert Review,
which was completed a couple of days ago, so this inconsistency was
left over from then.

Note that the DEs have approved the allocation (as suggested) and the
value will be updated in the IANA registry during publication.

Thanks!

Alvaro.