Acee,
> The current capability is specific to support of multiple labels - not > your parochial view on the interaction between SAFIs. > Since "bis" specification obsoletes the base document I was under the assumption that new capability will also obsolete the current used. It is no longer "3107bis" but just a new draft or at best errata - to the best of my understanding of IETF rules "bis" obsoletes the original spec. Requiring implmentors to read and follow both specifications to correctly implement the labeled BGP AF seems a bit odd ... don't you think ? Are you suggesting a second capability? All the more reason for a separate > draft. > No. See above. In any event, the non-backward compatible behavior you are proposing would > be better served in a separate draft than to burden RFC 3107 BIS. > Section 5 already discusses that point - so my comment should be considered as feedback towards that section . If there is WG consensus to proceed with that it would be pure waist of time to write a separate draft to argue against it. It seems interesting that IETF WG feedback expressed on the list for specific section of the draft in adoption call or during WG progress is turned around and request is made to write a new draft instead. Especially that document wise the feedback consideration may require addition of two sentences within section 5 :). Cheers, R.
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
