Hi Alvaro,

I posted a new version - draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-11. It should have all your inputs incorporated.

Please let me know if you are ok with it. Once it's approved from your side, I will update the OSPF draft.

thanks,
Peter


 On 23/03/2020 19:23, Alvaro Retana wrote:
Ok…let’s move forward.  No need to add more text.

Alvaro.

On March 23, 2020 at 10:36:42 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) ([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>) wrote:

Hi Alvaro,

On 3/23/20, 5:17 AM, "Peter Psenak" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Hi Alavaro,

On 20/03/2020 19:23, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> On March 20, 2020 at 10:34:59 AM, Peter Psenak wrote: > > > Peter: > > >>>>> I don't really see why one would affect the other. >>>> >>>> I agree. BMI-MSD is an egress capability and ERLD-MSD is an ingress >>>> capability. While they may be related in the internal ASIC implementation, >>>> they are independent from a capability perspective. >>> >>> Please write that then. >> >> there are many MSDs defined already, are we going to write that the new >> MSD type is not interacting with any other MSD each time we define a new >> one? > > Yes, when they could be related, we are. More importantly, the reason > why the will not interact, which is what Acee’s text points to.
honestly I do not see a reason to say that they do not interact. Because
if I use your logic I would have to mention hundred other node
capabilities that ERLD-MSD is not interacting with. My logic is that if
something interacts it needs to be specified, if it does not, it does
not need to be.

I agree. It seems like a slippery slope to specifically call out protocol elements which not related from a protocol standpoint.

Thanks,
Acee

> > BTW, according to the registry there are only 2 MSDs defined: > https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp-msd-types

there are more defined for SRv6 - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-06.

thanks,
Peter


> > > Alvaro. > >



_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to