If that "should" is a formal SHOULD then I would say yes, it's an update,
but that needs to be mentioned very explicitly ("This is a change to the
requirements of Section X of RFC Y" or something like that.) That way an
implementer is left in no doubt.Just IMHO, of course. Regards Brian On 16/10/2015 03:49, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote: > Brian, Jari, all, > > Some information on whether it should be update or extension: > > For the particular use case - supporting MVPN C-Bidir (Customer Bidirectional > PIM) with Ingress Replication - the optimized procedures in this new > specification should be used on all PEs for the involved VPN. The old > procedures can still be used (but not mixed) even for this use case but they > involve much more signaling. > > I am not sure if this constitutes "update" or just an extension and I > appreciate your input. > > Thanks. > Jeffrey > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 7:40 PM >> To: Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]>; draft-ietf-bess-mvpn- >> [email protected] >> Cc: General Area Review Team <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn- >> bidir-ingress-replication-03 >> >> Thanks for your review(s), Brian! Much appreciated. Re: the update >> question. Good question. What say the rest of you? >> >> Jari > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
