Speaking as WG member – It seems that additional IFIT-specific information is required to make this useful and the IGPs are certainly not the case. Additionally, the point was made that an IFIT specific information channel would anyway be required to provision the telemetry generation. Thanks, Acee
From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com> Date: Monday, April 6, 2020 at 2:33 PM To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>, Tony Li <tony1ath...@gmail.com> Cc: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com>, "draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framew...@ietf.org" <draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framew...@ietf.org>, "l...@ietf.org" <l...@ietf.org>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, Tianran Zhou <zhoutian...@huawei.com>, "draft-wang-lsr-ifit-node-capability-advertisem...@ietf.org" <draft-wang-lsr-ifit-node-capability-advertisem...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Lsr] I,Scope of FIT Capability: a node or a link? +1 Please do not take my comments about link vs node capabilities, as support for the solution, they are semantical. Cheers, Jeff On Apr 6, 2020, 8:58 AM -0700, Tony Li <tony1ath...@gmail.com>, wrote: This discussion is interesting, but please do not ignore the considerable feedback from multiple folks indicating that this advertisement does not belong in the IGP at all (regardless of scope). My opinion on that has not changed. +1 IS-IS is not the correct place to implement Service Discovery mechanisms. The management plane already has ample mechanisms for service and capability discovery. Tony _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list l...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
