Eric –
I will let the draft authors respond to the bulk of your comments. But in
regards to your question/comment:
“I assume (but do not actually know) that a similar situation exists for the
new ISIS FAD Sub-TLV of the existing TLV Type 242 - i.e. - ISIS presumably has
well defined handling
Hello,
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide
Isn't this just adding an analogous extension that already exists in RFC7794?
I don't think we need to do a lot of convincing at this point. I agree with
Les, if you want to talk about use cases (especially ones that are
controversial!) then the correct place for that is in a new informative
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Aijun Wang
> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 1:48 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: John E Drake ; Christian Hopps
> ; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura
> ; draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-origina...@ietf.org;
> lsr-
>
Hi, Chris: Originally, the appendix part is within the document, which is the
start point/main motivation to extend the prefix origin.
There may exists other usages of this information. Pack these examples into
some short sentences or introduction is viable, but expand some of them is also
Agreed. Also as use cases go that does delve into implementation aspects
of which can vary significantly.
So to your point as Les and Chris mentioned the focus of LSR and drafts
published is on the protocol extension. How it’s used is out of scope and
could be a draft in another WG. In this
Hi, Les and experts in LSR:
I am open to the removal of the this appendix to forward this draft.
But as stated in previous mail, providing this can assist the user/reader of
the draft. We often encounter the questions in the mail list that what the
usage of protocol/bit definition in some
> On Oct 16, 2020, at 1:51 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> wrote:
>
> Aijun -
>
> The point I am making is very focused.
>
> This draft is defining a protocol extension. As such it is necessary that
> this be Standards track as adhering to the normative statements in the draft
> are necessary
