Re: [Isis-wg] Jari Arkko's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-10: (with DISCUSS)

[Pushpasis Sarkar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jari,

I have uploaded version-11 addressing all the comments below. Please let 
me know if you have any more comments.

Thanks and Regards,

-Pushpasis

On 5/5/16 2:42 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-10: 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-node-admin-tag/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Peter Yee's Gen-ART review raised this issue which I agree with. Can this
> be defined in a more clear fashion? Or is there already a definition
> somewhere else that I had not seen?
>
> Page 5, section 4.2, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: The sentence states:
> "Being part of the Router CAPABILITY TLV, the node administrative tag
> sub-TLV MUST be reasonably small and stable."  If you're going to make
> this
> a MUST, you've got to at least give a definition of "reasonably small"
> and
> perhaps even "stable" in the context of this specification.  As it
> stands,
> there's no test for whether the MUST is enforceable or understandable
> between parties.
>
>
>
>