"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> writes:
Thanx for your detailed review. I have elected to copy the WG on my
reply as you also sent a copy of your review to the WG.
I'm not sure if it is formally specified, but it seems to me that a
Gen-Art review really should be copied to the WG.
It therefore has to be considered whether making many of the
changes you suggest might unintentionally suggest a substantive change
where none is intended.
Of course, my comments are only a review. Looking over them again, none
seem to technically critical; the ones with technical content are
improving the explanations of features that people (seem to be)
implementing correctly now. So I don't see any reason to object to
minimizing changes from RFC 4971.
[Les:] You refer here to the extended TLVs defined in RFC 7356
(pretty good find for someone who is not supposed to be an IS-IS
expert :-) ).
I looked at the type codepoint registry, and there were values over 255
(though unassigned), which was inconsistent with the text of
draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis. So it was just a matter of tracking down
what defined the alternative format.
Dale