Re: [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-te-app-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Les,

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 04:48:00PM +0000, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> Benjamin -
> 
> 
> 
> Thanx for your review.
> 
> Responses inline.
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> 
> > From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> 
> > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 12:42 AM
> 
> > To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> 
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Acee
> 
> > Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Acee Lindem
> 
> > (acee) <[e-mail]>
> 
> > Subject: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-te-app-14: (with DISCUSS
> 
> > and COMMENT)
> 
> >
> 
> > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> 
> > draft-ietf-isis-te-app-14: 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-te-app/
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> > DISCUSS:
> 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> >
> 
> > My apologies if this is super-obvious and I'm just missing it ... but
> 
> > Section 4.3 dictates that part of the value for the application-specific
> 
> > SRLG TLV is a "Neighbor System-ID + pseudo-node ID (7 octets)".  Where
> 
> > are these defined?  (We don't exactly say that we're reusing the structure
> 
> > from, e.g., TLV 138, which I note refers to the seventh octet as
> 
> > "pseudonode number", not "pseudo-node ID".  Similarly for the
> 
> > interpretation of the SRLG value(s).  Do we just need to reference that
> 
> > we're reusing the encoding from RFC 5307 (or similar) or are some
> 
> > changes needed?
> 
> >
> 
> [Les:] “system ID” and “pseudo-node ID” derive from the IS-IS base specification [ISO 19589]

Ah, so definitely "super-obvious", and just a consequence of my never
actually getting my hands on a copy of ISO 19589 (obvious paths seem to ask
for 200 CHF).

Sorry for the noise; I will go clear now (and will respond to the comment
section later).

-Ben