[Isis-wg] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-03: (with DISCUSS)

["Suresh Krishnan" <[e-mail]>]

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-03: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Section 4 requires the CAPABILITY TLV to be leaked without any change
based on the text below

"If leaking of the CAPABILITY TLV is required, the entire CAPABILITY TLV
MUST be leaked into another level without change even though it may
contain some sub-TLVs which are unsupported by the Router doing the
leaking. "

but Section 2 requires a router leaking the TLV from level-2 to level-1
to set the D bit and this violates the "without change" requirement. 

I think this inconsistency needs to be resolved somehow. 

P.S.: One possible way would be to add some exception text for the D bit
into the above text in Section 4. Another would be to remove the
restriction against change (I noticed that this restriction did not exist
in RFC4971 - was this check added to fix some issue identified during
deployment?).