Hi Alissa,
On 20/05/2020 21:57, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker wrote:
Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't clear on where the thread ended up from the Gen-ART review, but I'm
nevertheless suggesting some text below to resolve the main sticking point.
OLD
If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD advertise the
ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF.
NEW
If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD advertise the
ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF. The absence of these
advertisements implies that advertisement of the ELC is not supported.
I added the suggested text, plus I added "OSPF" at the end. So the text is:
"If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD
advertise the ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF.
The absence of these advertisements implies that advertisement of the
ELC is not supported in OSPF."
I added similar text to ISIS ELC draft.
thanks,
Peter
Not sure if that matches the intent though.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
