[Lsr] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04: (with DISCUSS)

[Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis/



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

I am balloting DISCUSS because I believe the specification is not clear enough.

(1) The document recommends (5 separate times) that an ID "SHOULD be identical
to the value advertised" in an existing TLV.

If the other TLV is advertised, when is it ok for the values not to be the
same?  Why is this action recommended and not required?

Should the receiver of these TLVs take any action if the values are not
identical?

(2) §3.1: The requirement for the Router ID to be unique within the flooding
scope of the LSP has been removed.

Please help me understand why this change is ok.  If the Router ID can be used
to identify "the router who generates the inter-AS reachability TLV", not
requiring unique values seems to go counter to that idea.