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

(Not sure why Mach's email address keeps disappearing from the TO list - hopefully he is receiving copies via the WG alias)

Uma -

Mach and I have had some discussions about doing a BIS for RFC 5316 because TLV 141 has a similar issue since its format stipulates a 32 bit router ID. If that were to happen I think that is the best place to clarify the content of sub-TLVs 11/12.
What do you think?

Note  that we don't really have a use case for sub-TLV 11(IPv4 Router ID) since that Router ID can be encoded in the fixed part of TLV 141/242.

Note also that to resolve the TLV 141 issue we need to define the equivalent of TLV242/sub-TLV 12 for TLV 141.

   Les

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Uma Chunduri [mailto:uma.chunduri@ericsson.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 4:04 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); ISIS-WG
> Cc: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
> Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-
> rfc4971bis-00.txt
> 
> Les,
> 
> In-line [Uma]:
> 
> --
> Uma C.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 11:51 AM
> To: Uma Chunduri; ISIS-WG
> Cc: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
> Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-
> rfc4971bis-00.txt
> 
> Uma -
> 
> Thanx for the comments.
> 
> If you read RFC 5316 Section 3.2 I think it is clear that the TLV 242 sub-TLVs
> defined there are meant to advertise what is in TLVs 134/140.
> [Uma]:  Loosely yes, but it really gets murky  if we see 3.3.4 and 3.3.5.
> 
> If you think that RFC 5316 is not explicit enough we can discuss the best way
> to clarify that. I am not sure that rfc4971bis is the best place to do that - but
> we can certainly discuss.
> 
> [Uma]:  It's not that explicit, IMO. I am sure you are thinking of the
> implications from 5316 PoV if we make it explicit?
> Like v4, it's too good to clarify non-TE situation with IPv6 too.
> 
>    Les
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Uma Chunduri [mailto:uma.chunduri@ericsson.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 11:43 AM
> > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); ISIS-WG
> > Cc: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
> > Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] FW: New Version Notification for
> > draft-ginsberg-isis- rfc4971bis-00.txt
> >
> >
> > In various contexts this hole has been discussed multiple times and
> > today we have to have an IPv4 router ID have to be configured even for
> > IPv6-only deployments.
> > I see the proposed text is a reasonable and perhaps less disruptive
> > way to address this .
> >
> > May be it's good disambiguate further this should be tied to TLV 140
> > (RFC 6119); meaning the  sub-TLV 12 (RFC 5316) should be matching to
> > TLV 140 if both are present.
> > Thoughts?
> > --
> > Uma C.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Les
> > Ginsberg
> > (ginsberg)
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 9:04 PM
> > To: ISIS-WG
> > Cc: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
> > Subject: [Isis-wg] FW: New Version Notification for
> > draft-ginsberg-isis- rfc4971bis-00.txt
> >
> > 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