On 6/7/17, 3:16 PM, "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <saja...@cisco.com<mailto:saja...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Ali: Hi! > 1) I will get a registry for them set up when there will be more than one > flag. Currently, there is only a > single flag defined and we do not anticipate any additional flags at this > point. To be clear: without the registry defined the specification is incomplete. If possible, consider the case where someone else (not one of the authors) wants to use one of the flags, what should be the policy for them to define it? Should it be first come first served, or would the WG prefer a Designated Expert to review the potential assignment, is it ok for an experimental draft to request assignment, or is a Standards Track document the only way? We’ve probably already written more text than the actual policy definition would take… <sigh> > 2) regarding removing P2MP mention (so that it get generalized to MP2MP), I > will do that but will > add a sentence to say the other tunnel types that are supported by EVPN – > e.g., currently P2MP are > supported but in the future MP2MP can also be supported. So, I don’t wan to > exclude MP2MP. I can > add his sentence during the RFC editing phase, is that OK? That is ok with me. Alvaro.
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
