Re: [Isis-wg] Sub-TLVs need to be documented outside of ISIS-TE

Don,

To make it clear to the readers, I wasn't acting as
the AD asking the WG to push the draft to STD at
this instance, just discussing.

[wg-member]

> I was operating under the assumptions from the joint IETF/JTC1
> draft.

I didn't know about such thing... or did you mean IETF's submission
to JTC1?

> If ISIS-TE is pushed to STD, can EXT-LSP-FRAGS refer
> to it for the definition of sub-TLVs?

Definitely. It actually does (that's why it will
have to wait in the rfc-ed queue until ISIS-TE
goes through.)

> Isn't EXT-LSP-FRAGS
> worded so it can be submitted to JTC1 fast-track?

I haven't reviewed it with this in mind.

> Then,
> wouldn't JTC1 have issues with it referring to an IETF STD
> document for the definition of sub-TLVs?

No. In fact, I think this is the only type of doc JTC1 would
have no problem normatively referring to.

Alex

> -don

>  --- On Wed 11/06, Alex Zinin  wrote:
> From: Alex Zinin [mailto: zinin@psg.com]
> To: dgoodspe@excite.com
>      Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org
> Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 21:18:12 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Sub-TLVs need to be documented outside of ISIS-TE

>> Don,
>> 
>> > Since sub-TLVs could be used by non-IETF uses (primarily the LSP
>> > Frags draft), general formatting and support for sub-TLVs needs
>> > to be documented outside of an IETF-specific draft (ISIS-TE).
>> 
>> Wouldn't it be better to push ISIS-TE to STD tracks? Then submissions
>> to JTC1 could reference it with no problem. Unless you had another
>> problem in mind (my brain is overloaded and doesn't work well these
>> days, I have to admit.)
>> 
>> Alex
>> 
>> 
>> 

> _______________________________________________
> Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
> The most personalized portal on the Web!

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
Isis-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg