Re: [Isis-wg] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alia,

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016, at 01:34 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
> Hi Alexey,
>
> Please see my earlier reply.   Attribute is correct and could apply
> to, in theory, a flag, as well
> as a sub-TLV or an entry in a sub-TLV.

Can it be defined clearly to avoid confusion? For somebody who doesn't
know much about IS-IS, for example a new implementor, this is a rather
nuanced definition.
>
> Regards,
> Alia
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Alexey Melnikov
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> __
>> Hi Alia,
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016, at 05:18 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Alexey Melnikov
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> __
>>>> Hi Alia,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016, at 05:03 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Alexey,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Alexey Melnikov
>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>> DISCUSS:
>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to get clarification on the following points before
>>>>>> recommending approval of this document:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) How do multiple CAPABILITY TLVs from the same source treated,
>>>>>>    if they
>>>>>> have the same S and D flags, but different subTLV? Are the
>>>>>> cumulative? Or
>>>>>> this is not allowed?
>>>>>> I am sorry if I missed where this was described, let me know if I
>>>>>> did.
>>>>>
>>>>> The end of Section 3 says " Where a receiving system has two
>>>>> copies of a CAPABILITY TLV from the same system that have
>>>>> different settings for a given attribute, the procedure used to
>>>>> choose which copy shall be used is undefined."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok, I wasn't sure that this was talking about the same thing.
>>>>
>>>> So just to double check: using multiple CAPABILITY TLVs with
>>>> different S and D flags is Ok (and described), but use of multiple
>>>> CAPABILITY TLVs with identical S and D flags is undefined as per
>>>> the sentence you quoted above?
>>>
>>> They have to have the same attribute - which could be a sub-TLV.
>>
>>
>> I don't think Les' answer agrees with yours.
>>
>> The word "attribute" only occurs once in the document in the sentence
>> you quote.
>> Does "a given attribute" mean "a single sub-TLV" or "all sub-TLVs
>> included in a CAPABILITY TLV instance"?
>>