Hi Mirja, On 10/10/16, 10:18 AM, "Mirja Kuehlewind" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for >draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-09: 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-two-part-metric/ > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >COMMENT: >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Two quick questions: > >1) Why does this doc update 2328 and 5340? I would assume an TLV >extension does not need to update the base protocol. This is due to an additional case in the base SPF calculation (see section 3.6). If we can agree on the precise definition of “Updates” and we converge on Adrian’s definition, then we could remove this since it is a backward compatible change. > >2) Why is the OSPFv3 extension described in a separate document? We are awaiting implementations of the base OSPFv3 LSA extensions and we don’t want to block OSPF documents with normative references. I have some optimism that the implementations are coming next year. Thanks, Acee > > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
