[Lsr] Re: Ketan Talaulikar's Discuss on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flex-algo-yang-11: (with DISCUSS)

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

Ketan, 

Can you please check the latest and hopefully clear your DISCUSS. 

Thanks,
Acee

> On Jun 26, 2026, at 3:29 AM, Ketan Talaulikar via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Ketan Talaulikar has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flex-algo-yang-11: 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-flex-algo-yang/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks to the authors and the WG for their work on their document.
> 
> I have two meta topics which I would like to discuss.
> 
> 1) The link-attr-op-mode knob is not clear since it is neither offering
> detailed description nor referencing the RFC 9479 subsections.
> 
>      choice link-attr-op-mode {
>        default "legacy"; >>> Why is this the default? Is that coming from
>        RFC9479? leaf legacy {
>          type empty;
>          description
>            "Only send legacy advertisements."; >>> What does this mean? Not
>            send via ASLA but only legacy advertisements (sec 3) or send via
>            ASLA with the L-bit (sec 4.2)?
>        }
>        leaf transition {
>          type empty;
>          description
>            "Send both application-specific and legacy
>             advertisements."; >>> What does this mean? Is there a reference
>             from the base RFC on how this is supposed to work?
>        }
>        leaf app-specific {
>          type empty;
>          description
>            "Only send application-specific advertisements."; >>> If there is a
>            compulsion to pick a default (I think there shouldn't be one?),
>            then I would pick this one.
>        }
>        description
>          "Link attributes mode. Default to legacy mode for
>           backward compatibility.";
>      }
> 
> Based on my understanding of RFC9479, we can only think of an enablement knob
> for ASLA advertisements at global level. The L-bit is perhaps something to
> control under the interface config under isis-asla. It could also be global if
> there is a desire to support hierarchical config for just the app selection
> (SABM/UDABM) and the L-bit setting.
> 
> 2) When new sub-sub-TLVs are introduced under ASLA sub-TLV or under FAD
> sub-TLV, how does the current structure make augmentation of the module easy
> and straightforward? I am not a YANG expert and hence I would like to
> cross-check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>