Hi Les, Scott, Peter, I appreciate the text about "not subject to standardization and are outside of the scope of this specification". That said (inline), On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 09:14:49PM +0000, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > Scott - > > Allow me to inject myself here. As editor of the companion IS-IS document (draft-ietf-isis-te-app) I have received similar comments - for example from Ben (copied on this thread). > > I continue to be at a loss as to why you believe we have to say something about User Defined Applications beyond what we have already said: > > "User Defined Application Identifier Bits have no relationship to > Standard Application Identifier Bits and are not managed by IANA or > any other standards body." > > If you do a search through both documents using "standard app" and "user defined app" I think you will find equivalent statements about both. Which means you are asking for some text regarding UDAs that doesn’t exist for SAs. > Why? We give instructions to IANA for how to managed the Standard Application Identifier Bits. Is it fair to give guidance to the entity assigning User Defined Application Identifier Bits (whomever that may be) about things they might want to consider while doing so? A "several ways to not shoot yourself in the foot" guide, as it were, even though such a guide is inherently incomplete. If there is nothing useful to say and the key factors are pretty inherent in how IS-IS/OSPF work, that's fine. But the "warnings about potential 'gotcha's" directed at the party assigning UAI bits is the main topic I was trying to get at in my remarks on the analogous part of the IS-IS document. Sorry for having made my point so circuitously. -Ben -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
