Hi Stephane,
> On Jan 14, 2016, at 6:12 PM, stephane.litkow...@orange.com wrote:
>
> Hi Stefano,
>
> My worry is that tomorrow we will have a new protocol, and this KEY piece may
> be forgotten because nothing tells that this is required…
why would it be like that ? The conflict resolution
Hi Stefano,
My worry is that tomorrow we will have a new protocol, and this KEY piece may
be forgotten because nothing tells that this is required... and this is a cross
protocol behavior that we want.
I'm fine to have it in the protocol as far as we have a more global document
telling that all
Hi Stephane,
to me it’s perfectly fine to have the sender behavior described in the protocol
because this is the critical part of the whole game.
If all implementations behave properly at the sender side, you won’t have any
problem at the receiver side.
Also, the protocol-specific draft is th
[Les:] Just to be sure I understand you, you are advocating putting the SRGB
sender behavior specification in draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution as
well as the receiver behavior?
Sender behavior HAS to be specified in the protocol documents as it describes
the normative behavior of the pr
Stephane -
From: stephane.litkow...@orange.com [mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 12:27 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: Updating other
drafts
Hi Les,
Hi Les,
BGP needs also to be taken into account : draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid.
IMO, as I already pointed, it would be easier to handle it a single document
rather than in the protocol docs. Moreover we will have the sender part in many
docs, and the receiver part in the spring-conflict-resol
