Hi Tony,
From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Tony Li <tony...@tony.li> Date: Friday, October 7, 2022 at 11:21 AM To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> Cc: Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppse...@cisco.com>, Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>, Henk Smit <henk.i...@xs4all.nl>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-01.txt Les, On Oct 7, 2022, at 8:16 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: 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! I have no wish to penalize anyone. You realize the latest version still has the statement: If all routers in an area advertise the Multi-part TLV Capability a node MAY advertise multi-part TLVs to increase space for payload values, unless otherwise specified by the TLV. At a minimum, the draft should specify a configuration parameter dictating whether advertisement of the capability by all area IS-IS routers is required for advertisement. With this new parameter, my preference would be to then leave it to implementations as to the default value, i.e., beyond the scope of the document. Thanks, Acee T
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
