Tony -
> > Your summarization is incorrect. > > The proposal is to advertise a advisory message that indicates that a node is > ready to receive MP-TLVs. It prohibits nothing. [LES:] That is what you are proposing - but others in the thread have proposed other ideas. For example, in an earlier post Chris stated: >> Once we have this info I think a stronger case might be made for actually >> having the router capability be used *operationally* (i.e., if you don't see >> the >> capability advertised then that router in fact doesn't send multi-tlv tlvs >> and >> they should be seen as replacements of each other), What I am trying to highlight is that the existing implementations of MP-TLVs for the "implicit" cases should not be penalized for sending MP-TLVs that are encoded consistent with how MP-TLVs for the "explicit" cases have been done. They are actually doing the right thing. If we are in agreement on that - great! Les > > Tony > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
