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

"Naiming Shen (naiming)" <> Sat, 06 January 2018 00:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B92F126B71; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 16:31:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.53
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TFKdao_ycD3H; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 16:31:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6279C126B6E; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 16:31:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=9240; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1515198678; x=1516408278; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=eZqf/UXII2f5sA5M2RVnhZY57wNDCIqLvlbyddboJo4=; b=mfZvaIPMA+v2j6DezN6Z9K+psvysH7PkzsEh/0gWxO+r08V3H0Dd88SQ X3V6RgxII6BqwYHmMw6lbUC5ykOBAZavAP9HBMWO2KGHqI8DYIPT847+n GSlFw/UYCwkB6iHfxKF9VqMLth1Pdg9PgFbPKjU0My79Tumtr/SmdgL6y k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.46,320,1511827200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="52371553"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Jan 2018 00:31:17 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w060VHxK001836 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 6 Jan 2018 00:31:17 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 18:31:16 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 18:31:16 -0600
From: "Naiming Shen (naiming)" <>
To: "t.petch" <>
CC: " list" <>, Christian Hopps <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-07
Thread-Index: AQHTXmMvIlsDCkaUj0W5jcon0L55haMrdnkAgAD5RwCAFzjKAIAWpEsAgAAgg36ADEXKAA==
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 00:31:16 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <007601d38094$72d122a0$>
In-Reply-To: <007601d38094$72d122a0$>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9EED72FB92634DA195C1D4E1B4C1A6C0ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-07
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2018 00:31:20 -0000

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the review, some replies inline,

On Dec 29, 2017, at 2:53 AM, t.petch <<>> 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.”

"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.

"This document also requests that IANA allocate a bit from the
'link-attribute bit values for sub-TLV 19 of TLV 22' registry.


(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.

- 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

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Naiming Shen (naiming)" <<>>