Re: [Isis-wg] TLV conflict

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks!  I was looking at the version that Harish mentioned - and didn't
verify that it was the most recent version.

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> 07 version of MSD draft published about 2 weeks ago states IANA
> allocations:
>
> Following values have been allocated by IANA:
> Value Description       Reference
> ----- --------------- -------------
> 23      Node MSD        This document
>
> Value Description       Reference
> ----- --------------- -------------
> 15      Link MSD          This document
>
> Hope this clarifies
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 08:11 Alia Atlas <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Les,
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Folks –
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The conflict for SRMS Preference sub-TLV in https://tools.ietf.org/html/
>>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-13#section-3.4 has already
>>> been noted and has been eliminated in the new version of the IS-IS SR draft
>>> which I expect to publish tomorrow. Note that although the IS-IS SR draft
>>> was given early allocation of some code points, a couple more sub-TLVs have
>>> been defined since then and these values have not yet been assigned by
>>> IANA. SRMS preference was one of them – though at the time of the writing
>>> of the version which added this the early allocation for MSD had not yet
>>> happened.
>>>
>>
>> Fine - but this is the exact issue with having "suggested" values that
>> aren't allocated in drafts.
>> I am really not happy with such text.  I have been pushing and happy to
>> approve early allocations.
>>
>>
>>> Alia - I believe the MSD draft already is using the code points which
>>> have been assigned by early allocation – so I do not know what further
>>> update you believe is required in that document.
>>>
>>> ???
>>>
>>
>> In the IANA section, it should refer to the values as allocated - not
>> suggested or potential.
>>
>>
>>>    Les
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Isis-wg [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Alia
>>> Atlas
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 14, 2017 7:01 AM
>>> *To:* Harish R Prabhu <[e-mail]>
>>> *Cc:* [e-mail];
>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Isis-wg] TLV conflict
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Harish,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please take a look at
>>>
>>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-
>>> codepoints.xhtml#isis-tlv-codepoints-242
>>>
>>> where it is clear that draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd has an early
>>> temporary registration for type 23.
>>>
>>>
>>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-02 should be updated to clearly
>>> state the IANA allocations that have already happened.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-13 MUST be updated to
>>> clearly state the IANA allocations
>>> that have already happened for it (e.g. values 2 & 19) and to STOP
>>> SQUATTING on already allocated
>>> code-points.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for bringing this to our attention!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Alia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Harish R Prabhu <
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> While going through the I-Ds pertaining to SR attributes, it was found
>>> that the following 2 TLVs have been assigned the same Type number
>>>
>>> SRMS Preference Sub-TLV :
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-
>>> routing-extensions-13#section-3.4
>>>
>>> Node MSD Advertisement :
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-
>>> routing-msd-02#page-4
>>>
>>>  Both these sections talk about different sub tlvs under
>>> router_capabilities TLV, but type value assigned is 23 for both.
>>>
>>> Request to address this.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> --
>>> Harish R Prabhu
>>> Bangalore, India.
>>> mailtp:[e-mail]
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Isis-wg mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>