> > Future specifications may specify BART values that change the > interpretation of the BARM octet. Those specifications must handle > backwards > > > ICE: This creates a potential dependency which I think we should avoid. I > think there are possible use-cases where the combination of the two values > could be valuable. But since we don’t yet know what that is, lets not > speculate on it. Let keep both values as equal importance without > interdependency. >
And I happen to think that if this proposal has any merit this is precisely the paragraph we have to keep to make sure that not every possible BART value is being slaved to IGP Registry Algorithm a.k.a as BARM then ... Without this section we would be mandating that BARM is always an IGP algorithm or FA so basically it would mandate IGP Algorithm registry as the only option to perform a calculation making BART possibly pretty much useless ... Having a registry being mapped 1:1 into another registry known as identity makes them both them the same thing by another name. So, to get anywhere close to consensus let's get bit less creative maybe and stick to the four letters of the alphabet that the AD extended as a wide playing field and the WG seems to converge around ... Or otherwise stick to option F) unmodified and see who's interested in it unless you insist on creating an option G) ... thanks --- tony
_______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
