I agree with Hannes on this.
However, if the document was to highlight strongly that the data is "a
non-routing related capability" (if that's what we believe!) and stress that the
information "that does not change frequently" (perhaps with some explanation of
"frequently") I believe that might help everyone.
Adrian
we have taken turns long-time ago to advertise non-routing
related information which is only relevant to controllers
(l2bundles comes into mind ;-)).
while it would have been nice to get at least notice that
an IS-IS extension is being worked on (i mean prior to
IANA asking for expert review :-/ ) i see no reason why we
should hold this back. - we can argue perhaps whether it should
be part of GENAPP or ROUTERCAP TLVs, but i cannot see the
sky falling to advertise a non-routing related capability,
that does not change frequently.
I agree but was just trying to get a better idea of precisely how the
information will be used and whether interface is the right granularity.