Re: [Isis-wg] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc4971bis-00.txt

two observations off the cuff:
a)

" The Router ID SHOULD be identical to the value advertised in the

   Traffic Engineering Router ID TLV [RFC5305].  If no Traffic
   Engineering Router ID is assigned the Router ID SHOULD be identical
   to an IP Interface Address [RFC1195] advertised by the originating
   IS.  If the originating node does not support IPv4, then the reserved
   value 0.0.0.0 MUST be used in the Router ID field and the IPv6 TE
   Router ID sub-TLV [RFC5316] MUST be present in the TLV.  Router
   CAPABILITY TLVs which have a Router ID of 0.0.0.0 and do NOT have the
   IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV present MUST be ignored."

OK, so won't we end up with different understanding of what a router
ID is between routers supporting this CAP sub-TLV and routers that
don't in case the router ID in the new sub-TLV and the normal (5305)
do not agree  unless you specify that 5305 takes preference _or_ say
that they MUST (and not SHOULD) match ?

Interesting conversation as to what today's routers do if you give
them 0.0.0.0 for IPv4 TE ID.

b) " In order for Router CAPABILITY TLVs with domain-wide scope originated

   by L1 Routers to be flooded across the entire domain, at least one
   L1/L2 Router in every area of the domain MUST support the Router
   CAPABILITY TLV."

that seems to indicate that a router CAN originate a domain-wide scope
even though it doesn't a L1/L2 in the domain supporting the CAP TLV
but it can be read as "though SHALL NOT".

Side question: what is the indication that a router supports CAP TLV ?
Does it have to advertise an empty one even if it has nothing to tell
to indicate that "I support CAP TLV"

just perfunctory read between other stuff ...

thanks

-- tony

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>
wrote:

> Folks -
>
> We have just submitted a bis draft for RFC 4971 to define how to use TLV
> 242 on a router which supports only IPv6 (has no IPv4 addresses).
>
> The draft is identical to the original RFC except for:
>
> 1)New text at the beginning of Section 3 defining how to use the TLV when
> no IPv4 Router ID is present
>
> 2)References have been updated
>
> Please let us know of any questions or comments.
>
>    Les (on behalf of Stefano and Mach)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 8:59 PM
> To: Mach Chen; Stefano Previdi (sprevidi); Les Ginsberg (ginsberg);
> Stefano Previdi (sprevidi); Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Mach Chen (Guoyi)
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc4971bis-00.txt
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc4971bis-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Les Ginsberg and posted to the IETF
> repository.
>
> Name:           draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc4971bis
> Revision:       00
> Title:          IS-IS Extensions for Advertising Router Info
> Document date:  2015-10-07
> Group:          Individual Submission
> Pages:          9
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc4971bis-00.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc4971bis/
> Htmlized:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc4971bis-00
>
>
> Abstract:
>    This document defines a new optional Intermediate System to
>    Intermediate System (IS-IS) TLV named CAPABILITY, formed of multiple
>    sub-TLVs, which allows a router to announce its capabilities within
>    an IS-IS level or the entire routing domain.
>
>
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> tools.ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> Isis-wg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>

-- 
*We’ve heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce
the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know
that is not true.*
—Robert Wilensky