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

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Thu, 18 August 2016 12:37 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCEB712DD23; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 05:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.699
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p5k_tEnuAnaP; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 05:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22c.google.com (mail-qk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BAAC12DD26; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 05:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id v123so14208103qkh.2; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 05:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=J9XugXegd9ndDuhexnT0aUv8MAzEdUSXZ5jofGh9Svs=; b=cwN4QJf72uQUJ/ihNJ1IypJ5lGcS6ATpXB0+2Q/FufxjPfGt9e035XkyNF+B63SdOE knffAem855c5J2OqeKQTnwBkSLx4tUTVkiR1YcT1aEBwI6DKzZ/Qpof8wpN0MkBqrsEb YbrqmFnsoqLkyTZeMrp/4SGKfU6frwqfHmKG9ZUwfBBj3u8AyVEOEc9113EuyUJJrCmC MiREBE46JjuuclnzoKSjLd2jM8TvRMLb370T++8+hJif2qtAbGwGwubEinr6vHFSba13 6hgtQDPSOViDYRIMgRj/Gdk2NADiegJZiLKZh6Zmt31M9s9N5CKvl5P1yo+Yjrv4kH9Z hBTA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=J9XugXegd9ndDuhexnT0aUv8MAzEdUSXZ5jofGh9Svs=; b=DaForpth3G/vSeenxm/2acGITnDKtRxfhgCiRj+Ch9wz75SXlgkzRA0tpSQGOliClB wn9gxkmiJFBSyZw/eRR8EdTtQrHiXJKMwZy5zT0/6qr3zBIxSTzOoP4tRq2QK/U98uo0 ilMFPx5KVCW5fYC9J4nHs3ib9cihQGl0OYa2HI3QGQsPz731yGeZXlpevFJnxgCYF7iC BeSV1UDf8TqAdQc97wCFoCQAown9ftbBWOqUAxzj/9ZxyDa6PRKgQDqRdtH+jhM2zSAm yQoWqsO+YUCo8Nj4BysWviuy09gTMnWle1frxYbYRlgyxSGY6gHtyqWyLD7n5HFtxBLj 2jCg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkooutD0HuVqCM8J89SD0A0sPRQ6824bi7CU6WBT2Hle8J88FcpMaxkhQHq4p7Ad3K+6TXD8phZpMiBfQZURQ==
X-Received: by 10.55.127.197 with SMTP id a188mr1949798qkd.150.1471523657791; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 05:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.237.52.193 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 05:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1471514708.3080688.698917081.5D24276D@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <147136220282.22903.10134856216046001373.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAG4d1rfoW_7R0qkKvLt71-P1XegGPd1CLwLtXtmTCS4N50kaQQ@mail.gmail.com> <1471364164.2609509.697007537.7E0612EB@webmail.messagingengine.com> <CAG4d1re4inwF6_yQT=qKCXz=PeUQzMYBfoyPvvN60h_QJZWPDQ@mail.gmail.com> <1471514708.3080688.698917081.5D24276D@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:34:17 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rczq6_6md_+xjZiooLOrohs9pXP_zXHvPb2izKwLZj+eA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c05c08ae6c0bf053a57cc27"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/uIqc5hUQES2FxNi1irAF_XBWrao>
Cc: isis-chairs@ietf.org, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 12:37:31 -0000

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.

Regards,
Alia

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
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 <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
> 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 <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
> 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"?
>
>
>