Hi Tony,
On 11/05/17 18:37 , prz wrote:
<lots of "yes, needed and will be done" ... cut out :->
So, overall I think we agree on scope of the problem that needs to be
addressed so we get a coherent set of standards out
so would you agree to make this a WG document?
Hey Peter,
yes, given the backward compat section addresses all the issues and the
signaling states/transitions are properly
written down as you indicated I see how the idea has merit to be taken
on. I do see some holes in what you suggest
as behavior but that can be discussed through/ironed out.
right.
And yes, from all I gathered so far there seems to be some unnumbered
4203 around and needs to be paid attention to.
agree.
thanks,
Peter
--- tony
.
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
