Hi Peter, I’d say that if none of the implementations are using it, we should remove it.
Thanks, Acee On 6/9/17, 1:04 PM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <[email protected]> wrote: >Acee, > >my question is whether we need the whole section 6 and the SID/Label >Binding Sub-TLV that it specifies. In OSPF Binding SID is not used for >SRMS advertisement like in ISIS. > >thanks, >Peter > > > >On 09/06/17 16:45 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> Corrected IS-IS WG alias – Please reply to this one. >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> From: Acee Lindem <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Date: Friday, June 9, 2017 at 10:42 AM >> To: OSPF WG List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, >> "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Cc: "[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>" >> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Subject: OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also >> effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) >> >> Hi OSPF, ISIS, and SPRING WGs, >> >> As part of the Alia’s AD review, she uncovered the fact that the ERO >> extensions in 6.1 and 6.2 are specified as far as encoding but are >> not specified as far as usage in any IGP or SPRING document. As >> document shepherd, my proposal is that they simply be removed since >> they were incorporated as part of a draft merge and it appears that >> no one has implemented them (other than parsing). We could also >> deprecate types (4-8) in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA Sub-TLV >> registry to delay usage of these code points for some time (or >> indefinitely ;^). >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
