Hi Jeff, I think we’ve agreed that the Errata should be accepted. We’ll need to update our IOS-XR implementation to support the updated interpretation with the single octet Reserved field removed and a TLV length of 4.
All, When you are reviewing/implementing drafts or RFCs and encounter discrepancies like this, please report them to the appropriate IETF list ASAP. Thanks, Acee P.S. There has also been some discussion of a quick BIS version of RFC 7810. From: Jeff Haas <jh...@juniper.net> Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 1:10 PM To: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com> Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, "sprev...@cisco.com" <sprev...@cisco.com>, Spencer Giacalone <spencer.giacal...@gmail.com>, John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net>, Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com>, Deborah Brungard <db3...@att.com>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, Olivier Dugeon <olivier.dug...@orange.com> Subject: Re: [Lsr] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7810 (5293) Acee, On Mar 22, 2018, at 10:53 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>> wrote: I agree. It appears the error in the RFC has been interpreted multiple ways and I’m leaning towards the recommending the Errata being accepted as submitted given the format in OSPF (RFC 7471) and the BGP-LS TE-PM draft. It would be interesting to hear what your implementation does. To close this particular loop, JunOS doesn't currently support RFC 7810. -- Jeff
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
