Hi Stewart,
Thanks for your comments.
As an individual contributor, please find some comments inlined. [Bruno]
> From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant >
> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2016 6:55 PM
>
> There was some discussion on the conflict resolution draft
> On Dec 5, 2016, at 12:19 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>
>
>
> On 04/12/2016 15:53, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote:
>> Stewart,
>>
>> thanks for the feedback.
>>
>> Just to give you an update, the work currently done in the context of the
>> conflict-resolution draft aimed to, indeed, limit
Stewart -
I also am happy to get more feedback.
Inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 3:19 PM
> To: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
> Cc: spring@ietf.org; draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolut...@ietf.org
> Subject:
On 04/12/2016 15:53, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote:
Stewart,
thanks for the feedback.
Just to give you an update, the work currently done in the context of the
conflict-resolution draft aimed to, indeed, limit/reduce the impact of a
misconfiguration in presence of conflicting prefix/sid
Stewart,
thanks for the feedback.
Just to give you an update, the work currently done in the context of the
conflict-resolution draft aimed to, indeed, limit/reduce the impact of a
misconfiguration in presence of conflicting prefix/sid mappings.
It is based on the concept that there’s no such
There was some discussion on the conflict resolution draft at IETF97
that got cut off with a request to discuss on the list.
As I understand the situation, we have a misconfiguration in the network,
and we are being encouraged to take an essentially aggressive strategy
of picking one of the confi
