IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OSPF] AD Review of draft-ietf-ospf-cap

Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com> Mon, 23 October 2006 17:43 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gc3q9-00074V-Ut; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:43:57 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gc3q9-00074H-EE for ospf@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:43:57 -0400
Received: from mail-red.research.att.com ([192.20.225.110]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gc3q4-0003O9-JY for ospf@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:43:57 -0400
Received: from bright.research.att.com (bright.research.att.com [135.207.20.189]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB956147CCC; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:43:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from fenner@localhost) by bright.research.att.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.10/Submit) id k9NHhpF5020698; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:43:51 -0700
From: Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>
Message-Id: <200610231743.k9NHhpF5020698@bright.research.att.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] AD Review of draft-ietf-ospf-cap
References: <200610191232.k9JCWdlG028778@bright.research.att.com> <45380295.3040203@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:43:51 -0700
Versions: dmail (linux) 2.7/makemail 2.14
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199
Cc: ospf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ospf>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org

>Since this TLV is for informational
>purposes I think it would make sense to reclaim bit 0. I'll also claify 
>the numbering and contact someone regarding update of one of the existing 
>implementations.

After thinking about this a little more, if it makes more sense
to keep some of the bits where they were before due to implementations,
it's reasonable to leave a hole (either at zero, or somewhere else)
and allow that to be assigned by IANA/Expert later.

  Bill

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email