I'm fine if both documents have the text thanks Scott > On Jun 17, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Rob - > > IS-IS draft currently states: > > "User Defined Application Identifier Bits have no relationship to > Standard Application Identifier Bits and are not managed by IANA or > any other standards body." > > (OSPF has this text also.) > > I am happy enough to include an additional statement similar to the OSPF text below in Section 4. > > Scott can speak for himself of course - but not clear to me that this really satisfies him since his comment was on the OSPF draft that already had this text. > > And not clear that this would make Ben (copied) any more comfortable since his concern (clarified in his most recent post) is about discussing allocation of the UDA bit space. > > But I will add the text - it makes the two drafts closer in content - which has been an ongoing goal during the review process. > > Thanx. > > Les > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@xxxxxxxxx> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 5:09 AM >> To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Les Ginsberg >> (ginsberg) <ginsberg@xxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: lsr@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse.all@xxxxxxxx; ops- >> dir@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; Scott O. Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx> >> Subject: RE: [Last-Call] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr- >> reuse-14 >> >> Hi Les, >> >> Would you be opposed to adding text similar to the OSPF paragraph below to >> the ISIS draft? >> >> I think that the OSPF draft does a better job of first introducing UDAs. Having >> just looked at the ISIS draft, it does seem to somewhat assume that the >> reader will just know what they are ... >> >> I understand that this should resolve Scott's concerns. >> >> Regards, >> Rob >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: last-call <last-call-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Scott O. Bradner >>> Sent: 15 June 2020 11:17 >>> To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: lsr@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse.all@xxxxxxxx; ops- >>> dir@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx >>> Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-ospf-te- >>> link-attr-reuse-14 >>> >>> that looks just fine to me - thanks >>> >>> Scott >>> >>>> On Jun 15, 2020, at 5:14 AM, Peter Psenak >>> <ppsenak=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Scott. >>>> >>>> there is a following text in the OSPF draft: >>>> >>>> "On top of advertising the link attributes for standardized >>>> applications, link attributes can be advertised for the purpose of >>>> applications that are not standardized. We call such an >>>> application a "User Defined Application" or "UDA". These >>>> applications are not subject to standardization and are outside of >>>> the scope of this specification." >>>> >>>> Feel free to propose an additional text if you feel above is not >>> sufficient. >>>> >>>> thanks, >>>> Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 14/06/2020 21:22, Scott Bradner via Datatracker wrote: >>>>> Reviewer: Scott Bradner >>>>> Review result: Ready >>>>> I have reviewed the latest version of this document and my earlier >>> issues have >>>>> been resolved at least well enough for teh document to be considered >>> ready for >>>>> publication. >>>>> that said I still do not see where "User Defined Application >>> Identifier" is >>>>> actually cleanly defined - one can read carefully and determine but it >>> would be >>>>> easier on the reader to just say that it is a field that can be used to >>>>> indicate the use of one or more non-standard applications within some >>> scope >>>>> (network, subnet, link, organization, ... not sure what scopes are >>> meaningful >>>>> here but it does not seem that a User Defined Application Identifier >>> would be a >>>>> global (between network operators) value >>>>> Scott >>>> >>>> -- >>>> last-call mailing list >>>> last-call@xxxxxxxx >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call >>> >>> -- >>> last-call mailing list >>> last-call@xxxxxxxx >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call > > -- > last-call mailing list > last-call@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
