Dear Chairs and WG,
We have updated the draft which incorporated the suggestions from Acee and Loa.
Thank you very much.
The main changes are as follows:
add the section 4.1 for "Stub Router Advertisement Backward Compatibility"
correct the "Router Functional Capabilities
Why is this review on rt...@ietf.org and not on lsr@ietf.org?
Tom Petch
From: rtgwg on behalf of julien.meu...@orange.com
Sent: 29 November 2023 16:03
To: rtg-...@ietf.org
Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-sr-yang@ietf.org; rt...@ietf.org
Hi Bruno,
No, we are not going to document the behavior of every implementation for every
TLV, sub-TLV, and sub-sub-TLV for you. We don’t have that kind of access nor
would we get permission to do so. And we’re not young enough.
The point of clearly advertising capabilities is so that
I support adoption of this document by the WG.
Regards,Reshad.
On Friday, November 17, 2023, 12:24:12 PM EST, Yingzhen Qu
wrote:
Hi,
This begins a WG adoption call for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv:
draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-04 - Multi-part TLVs in IS-IS (ietf.org)
Please send your
Support.
As the mechanism described in the draft has already been implemented by the
three
largest vendors of ISP-class routers, and that software has been deployed in
real networks
today, we better document this asap in an RFC.
henk.
> On 11/17/2023 6:23 PM CET Yingzhen Qu wrote:
>
Hi authors,
* We are documenting existing behavior, codifying what we believe most
implementations are already doing
Could the authors share with the WG what are those existing behaviors (TLVs
supporting MP-TLV) and implementations?
Many be this is a reason for some disconnect as
*
Hi Tom,
That looks to me like a human mistake on the CC'ed recipients. Using the
directorate web form may have prevented it, but that would have been
much less fun.
Thanks for your careful checking. I'd be happy to hear your opinion on
the router-id type.
Julien
On 29/11/2023 17:33, tom
