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.