Subject: draft-ietf-isis-traffic-00 & draft-ietf-isis-omp-00

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 18:26:19 -0500

Tony,

We have a document conflict.

  draft-ietf-isis-traffic-00:

   Certain sub-TLVs are proposed here:
           Sub-TLV type    Length (octets) Name
           3               4               Administrative group (color)
           6               4               IPv4 interface address
           8               4               IPv4 neighbor address
           9               4               Maximum link bandwidth
           10              2               Maximum reservable link bandwidth
           11              32              Current bandwidth reservation
           18              3               TE Default metric

  draft-ietf-isis-omp-00:

    IPv4 interface address            subtype 6, length 4
    IPv4 neighbor address             subtype 8, length 4
    Maximum (out) link bandwidth      subtype 9, length 4
    Current (out) bandwidth usage     subtype 12, length 4
    Maximum inbound bandwidth usage   subtype 15, length 4
    Outbound fractional packet loss   subtype 17, length 4
    Inbound fractional packet loss    subtype 18, length 4
    Maximum inbound link bandwidth    subtype 19, length 4

Note that there is a conflict in sub-TLV 18.  Same number is used for
two very different sub-TLVs.

I'd prefer to see the entire list in draft-ietf-isis-traffic-00 and
have draft-ietf-isis-omp-00 reference draft-ietf-isis-traffic-00.  It
already had an attempted reference but isis-omp preceded isis-traffic
so the reference shows up as [?] (latex's way of saying unresolved
citation).  Is it OK with you if the entire set of sub-TLVs is
described in draft-ietf-isis-traffic-00?

Curtis

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 15:27:25 -0800 (PST)

Curtis,

Let's take this off the mailing list.  This is an editorial issue.

Tony