Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Comments on draft-ietf-isis-caps-00.txt

From: "Jonathan Harrison" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 15:34:28 -0000

Naiming, Les,

Thanks for the explanations.  Would it be possible to put some of this information into the draft, to avoid these questions coming up again (and again!)?

Thanks,
Jon

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

---

From: Les Ginsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 12:51:26 -0800

At 03:34 PM 3/9/2005 +0000, Jonathan Harrison wrote:
>Naiming, Les,
>
>Thanks for the explanations.  Would it be possible to put some of this 
>information into the draft, to avoid these questions coming up again (and 
>again!)?
>
>Thanks,
>Jon

Jon -

There are a number of authors of this draft, so any changes would require 
some consensus. But, referring to your original points by number,  I will 
summarize my view of what changes might be made.

1) The use of router ID

We should explicitly state:

"A router which generates a capability TLV MUST also generate a Traffic 
Engineering Router ID TLV (134) at each level for which it generates a 
router capability TLV."

I don't think we need to explain why we DIDN'T use system ID.

2) "a system should not use capability TLVs unless the advertiser of the 
LSP containing the TLV is currently reachable..."

Some explanatory text as to the motivation would be helpful. TBD

3) Multiple copies of a capabilities TLV...

I prefer to leave the text as written.
As I indicated in my earlier response, this is a generic problem not unique 
to the capabilities TLV. As such, if something needs to be said, it needs 
to be said in someplace that has a larger context. ("If" something needs to 
be said...)

4)Rewording of  the second paragraph of section 4.

I am OK with the text as written, but if we decide to accept your 
alternative we should correct it as pointed out by Naiming to not restrict 
the text to referring to capability TLVs generated only by L1 systems. The 
issue isn't with the original source of the TLV, but with the scope of the 
flooding of the information.

    Les