Re: draft-ietf-isis-traffic

[Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>]

Bert,

> No matter what, if cisco needs this type of stuff, then one would
> do somethink aka:

>        200-255  - reserved for vendor extensions

> And then (outside the document) cisco could be assigned values 250-254
> or so. So in other words, it is not appropriate to put in a WG document
> that some values are reserved for a particular vendor. Can Lucent have
> a reservation for 5 as well? Alcatel? Juniper, Nortel, .... etc...
> And I mean can they have them reserved in the document, just as cisco 
> has them reserved now.

My understanding is yes, they can... not that I like
the idea though.

> This of course ignores the "vendor extensions" discussion we've recently 
> had, and that may in fact not be applicable to this name space.

I agree with your sentiments. The discussion about
vendor extensions in this case is exactly what I would
like to avoid. I asked the authors to adds words saying
that extensions using the TLVs SHOULD be documented so
that the WG can do a reasonable review. If the doc has
these words and Cisco is fine with removing this
reservation, we don't have the problem. If they don't
want to let go of these, we'll indeed need to come up
with something like what you mention above...

Alex