I support moving this document forward. Similar functionality in IS-IS has proved useful.
I would however like to repeat comments I made earlier in the review of this document. The content of the Appendices should be removed. The Appendices define and discuss deriving topology information from prefix advertisements - which is flawed and should not be done. Perhaps more relevant, the purpose of the document is to define protocol extensions supporting advertisement of the originators of a prefix advertisement. There is no need to discuss how this mechanism might be used to build topology information. This document should confine itself to defining the protocol extensions - similar the RFC 7794. If the authors do not agree to do this, I would encourage this point to be discussed during IESG review. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Christian Hopps > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:15 PM > To: lsr@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-origina...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr- > a...@ietf.org; Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> > Subject: [Lsr] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-06 > > This begins a 2 week WG Last Call, ending after Oct 29th, 2020, for: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator/ > > The following IPR has been filed https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3448/ > > Authors, > > Please indicate to the list, your knowledge of any other IPR related to this > work. > > Thanks, > Chris. _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
