Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-isis-caps-05.txt

From: Hannes Gredler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 16:03:47 +0100

looks good now, tx for incoprorating all the amendments; - /hannes

JP Vasseur wrote:
> Hi Hannes,
> 
> sounds like we can now close on this ?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> JP.
> 
> On Dec 15, 2005, at 3:39 AM, Hannes Gredler wrote:
> 
>>> In the admin tags draft, specific new sub-TLVs are being defined.
>>> Clearly in doing so the format of those sub-TLVs must be specified.
>>
>>
>> sorry for not being clear:
>>
>> agreed, in a descendant doc the typecode, length and *value* of a  
>> subTLV needs
>> to be defined. - what the admin-tags-draft in additon does:
>> is to specify the length of the type field and the length of the  
>> lengthfield
>> (= subTLV format).
>>
>> the general subTLV format (type-field length, length-field length)
>> for the extd IP reach TLV #135 was described in the base spec (=  
>> RFC3784)
>>
>> and it got redefined (1-octet type, 1 octet length ...)
>> in the admin-tags draft and this is also an overspecification.
>> (altough i am not aware of any confusion b/c of this)
>>
>> ---
>>
>> anyway, for the isis-caps draft, adding a paragraph pointing to  
>> rfc3784 is
>> good enough for me.
>>
>> /hannes
>>
>>> In the capabilities draft we are merely saying "sub-TLVs go here". We
>>> are not defining any specific sub-TLVs in the document - therefore  
>>> we do
>>> not need to discuss their format.
>>>    Les
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Isis-wg mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

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