On 12/03/2020 12:33, Christian Hopps wrote:
Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> writes:
[KT] The behaviors currently listed in the draft do not have an argument nor is
the use of B and N required for them. We cannot preclude a future use-case or
extension where such behaviors introduced are also applicable to ISIS. So IMHO
ruling such aspects out might not be the right thing to do from a protocol
extensibility perspective.
No opinion here on this sub-sub-TLV; however, it has been stated elsewhere that
this document will be re-spun for each new behavior that is to be carried in
IS-IS (not my personal preference, fwiw...).
"it has been stated elsewhere that this document will be re-spun for
each new behavior"
I don't believe above was the outcome. Instead, a new document will be
needed for any new behavior.
thanks,
Peter
Thanks,
Chris.
[as WG member]
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
