Re: [Isis-wg] TLV conflict

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 <akatlas@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Les,
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <
> ginsberg@cisco.com> 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:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Alia
>> Atlas
>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 14, 2017 7:01 AM
>> *To:* Harish R Prabhu <harish.r.prabhu@gmail.com>
>> *Cc:* draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org;
>> isis-wg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org
>> *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 <
>> harish.r.prabhu@gmail.com> 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:harish.r.prabhu@gmail.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Isis-wg mailing list
>> Isis-wg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>>
>>
>>
>