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

Alia Atlas <> Tue, 16 August 2016 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7E4512D121; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 09:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id httaSJ0DZkOK; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEA3E12B069; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w38so37260982qtb.0; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dTq5ZD6AbXb7ljnWy32TKAwBFAblYbScaO5/5eMyyWA=; b=A7SQEtbjJvnM/+gvWYa5CMFxBK16TW5zwG5b+Ts6BpEB0FT4H306M0tQXXpS2tk2Z2 Y+Zr/v8EZdu50R7f4F6DbO/zDbZOcGY4DZ+T1F7q60QD51VV4iGnT/WMTVbB03R9fPHZ HAUETaJz+BqX7iD8y65Y7OHKebhdZVCmxt0LPXd9Y7esA/Ty5AI6R3u56XUUGtb4fYx/ A8TF7fSQUvpdtJVc0VzE3xHXOULAPb2AU+VCOjLvBcwAs3n8t6j40i15GL9eSeuAL4le 4Ovg6ERK07Jt2HxX30GzINMY7d8GbsjmM35nJZbl06sSjL6V4a/T/XCSmPmmzIkpt8Wl 4iJQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dTq5ZD6AbXb7ljnWy32TKAwBFAblYbScaO5/5eMyyWA=; b=ZQmIxMogo9IHI8imE8XWfqYZHBL4JZDGfYRHCM3jWsWxsfW7B3GkbhAQYfxd+3QRW5 i8toD3DkAMnZ/un9gs5eOlD8hlhKbJQD5olwUQYIY89pY27eBy5zMOyQZMyN5ZZSerzK hQNgtMfQ6kC5nZZ/NmlKsItlRzAfDSL+jkfgUiYHxFo3JaY1VoiB+RYUINLAr12v2/Gy apBLr9y5Bthp2YVFkmVvNdpq9BJO7HaSTXRjAycpahDPYktq7p+m27RcdoHta2ijiR3B goIRVbL+DIpDQpirltUW8vfh38cO3vc63OTU77jn3X9VU3A8gTiNPDOVHo98lnG1jpmL FW3w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkooutxNShkjVx2IaEmAoiJOkJ9ICSdMhkBQnLsRopJDa3pxrCUqS1eo++Wf/MjxpLJpMplRfXolFZIZzqsVw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id l1mr40157598qtd.124.1471363402806; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 09:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 09:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Alia Atlas <>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 12:03:22 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Alexey Melnikov <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c1252f2f5bdb8053a327cce
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, Christian Hopps <>,, The IESG <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:03:26 -0000

Hi Alexey,

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Alexey Melnikov <>

> Alexey Melnikov 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
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

This bis is to update the handling for IPv6; there was no discussion about
changing the basic details (such as this)
in the updated version.

2) In Section 4, 1st sentence: how can this specification have
> requirements on implementation that don't support this extension? If this
> behaviour is already prescribed by another specification, then you should
> not use RFC 2118 keyword and you should reference the relevant
> specification.

RFC1195 says
"   Any codes in a received PDU that are not recognised shall be ignored
   and, for those packets which are forwarded (specifically Link State
   Packets), passed on unchanged."

A reference would be fine - but this is basic well-known behavior for IS-IS.
The authors may have more details.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Should subTLVs have an IANA registry? Or is there an existing one
> already?

It's already there -
but it does look like an updated reference to rfc4971bis would be a good


> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list