On December 14, 2018 at 9:49:28 AM, Susan Hares (shares@xxxxxxxx) wrote: Sue: Hi! I think we might be talking about two different things…or I got lost, which is completely possible. :-) I think Yoshi is asking about the format of the TLVs, which happens to be the same as the OSPF ones (rfc7471), but slightly different than ISIS (rfc7810bis): the type and length fields are different. I had already pointed this out in my AD review, so the text changed from "The semantic of the TLV is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471]” (in -14) to "The semantics of the value field in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]” (in -15)…and the text about "TLV formats follow the rules defined in [RFC7752]” was added, as Les pointed out. I think this is enough. When you say "align with IGP TLVs”, are you talking about the format of the TLV, or are you referring to something else? In some BGP-LS document I’ve seen tables that map the BGP-LS TLVs to the corresponding ISIS/OSPF TLVs — with the understanding that the format is different. One such example is in §2.4/2.5 of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext [1]. Is that the alignment you’re asking about? If so, then I think that such a table would be useful. Thanks! Alvaro.
|
