Sorry, had to resend the email with reduced recipients because it was held due
to too many recipients.
Thanks,
Yingzhen
On 8/14/20, 2:50 PM, "Yingzhen Qu" wrote:
Hi Tarek,
The proposed change separates IP routes and MPLS routes, and it works fine
with RFC 8349. All other MPLS
The following errata report has been rejected for RFC8349,
"A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NMDA Version)".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6251
--
Status: Rejected
From: Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: 14 August 2020 16:27
Hi Tom,
The problem is that RFC 8349 defines an AF-agnostic model for a RIB. The draft
augments the base model with optional MPLS attributes that would ostensibly be
applicable to all AFs. What most people miss, is that it also hijacks the
Hi Tom,
The problem is that RFC 8349 defines an AF-agnostic model for a RIB. The draft
augments the base model with optional MPLS attributes that would ostensibly be
applicable to all AFs. What most people miss, is that it also hijacks the base
model for the MPLS address-family and subverts
From: Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: 11 August 2020 14:08
Hi Tom, Draft Authors,
The draft could easily be fixed. You just need to:
1. Expand on the single sentence in section 2.1 on the need for non-IP MPLS
routes. Given that the draft wasn't modeled correctly, this wasn't apparent to
most of
