Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-07

["Naiming Shen (naiming)" <[e-mail]>]

Tom,

Sure. We can add similar wording on that.

thanks.
- Naiming

> On Jan 6, 2018, at 4:12 AM, t.petch <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Naiming
> 
> One follow-up comment inline
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> ---- Original Message -----
> From: "Naiming Shen (naiming)" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2018 12:31 AM
> 
>> Hi Tom,
>> 
>> Thanks for the review, some replies inline,
>> 
>> On Dec 29, 2017, at 2:53 AM, t.petch
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> 
>> A couple of IANA thoughts on this I-D;
>> 
>> "This document requests that IANA allocate from the IS-IS TLV
>>  Codepoints Registry a new TLV, "
>> 
>> - Is there a particular range that this value should come from?
>> 
>> NS> will add the range.
>> 
>> 
>> - A note in s.2 asking that TBD be replaced by the value that IANA
>> allocates might be useful for the RFC Editor.
>> 
>> NS> will do.
>> 
>> 
>> - Are the flag bits of this new TLV going to form a new registry?
>> 
>> NS> it is not.
>> 
>> 
>> - And a non-IANA thought - what does a receiver do if it receives more
>> than one such TLV?
>> 
>> NS> In section 2, it mentions "A sender MUST only transmit a single
>>     Reverse Metric TLV in a IS-IS Hello PDU.”
> 
> I know it does, but I also know that we cannot rely on all
> implementations being perfect:-)
> 
> Look at some other RFC (e.g. RFC5029) and you will find an action
> defined such as subsequent ones will be ignored, or perhaps that this
> should be treated as a fatal error or ..  I suggest something similar
> here although have no strong views what the action should be.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
>> "This document also request that IANA allocate from the link-attribute
>>  bit value for sub-TLV 19 of TLV 22."
>> I struggled to parse this initially.
>> 
>> Perhaps
>> "This document also requests that IANA allocate a bit from the
>> 'link-attribute bit values for sub-TLV 19 of TLV 22' registry.
>> 
>> 
>> NS> OK.
>> 
>> (That registry title is a bit of a mouthful compounded by the lack of
>> Capitals in the title:-(
>> 
>> The coupling between the request to IANA to allocate the bit and the
>> actual definition in the body of the I-D is ... well, non-existent.
> You
>> should have a something about the octet with a TBD2 (not a second TBD)
>> in section 3.6, a TBD2 in the IANA actions and a request that this be
>> replaced by RFC Editor by the value that IANA allocates.
>> 
>> 
>> NS> will do.
>> 
>> thanks.
>> - Naiming
>> 
>> Yes, a reader can deduce all this but the lack of precision is how
>> mistakes are made IMO.  RFC5209 has the sort of detail that I would
>> expect.
>> 
>> Tom Petch
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Naiming Shen (naiming)"
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>