Hi Dirk, I agree we should use the same term but we have finished WG last call and AD review for the OSPFv2 Segment Routing extensions. Additionally, everyone is familiar with the term link-group. A link-set would be new terminology. Let’s fix the IS-IS draft.
Thanks, Acee > > > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions >Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 06:26:45 -0700 >Resent-From: <alias-boun...@ietf.org> >Resent-To: <ppse...@cisco.com>, <stef...@previdi.net>, ><cfils...@cisco.com>, <han...@rtbrick.com>, <ro...@google.com>, ><wim.henderi...@nokia.com>, <jefftant.i...@gmail.com> >Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 15:26:47 +0200 >From: Dirk Goethals <dirk.goeth...@nokia.com> >To: <draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensi...@ietf.org>, ><draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensi...@ietf.org>, >"draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensi...@ietf.org" ><draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensi...@ietf.org> > > > >Hi authors, > >OSPF's G-flag and ISIS's S-flag are both representing adjacency sets, >see snip below, >can we align these definitions and simply call it S-Flag in both IGPs. > >Thx, >Dirk > >OSPFv2 and OSPFv3: > > The G-Flag. Group Flag. When set, the G-Flag indicates that > the Adj-SID refers to a set of adjacencies (and therefore MAY > be assigned to other adjacencies as well). > > > >ISIS: > > S-Flag. Set flag. When set, the S-Flag indicates that the > Adj-SID refers to a set of adjacencies (and therefore MAY be > assigned to other adjacencies as well). > >. > > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
