Thanks! Alissa > On May 21, 2020, at 3:51 AM, Peter Psenak <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Alissa, > > On 20/05/2020 21:57, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker wrote: >> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: No Objection >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc/ >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> I wasn't clear on where the thread ended up from the Gen-ART review, but I'm >> nevertheless suggesting some text below to resolve the main sticking point. >> OLD >> If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD advertise the >> ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF. >> NEW >> If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD advertise the >> ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF. The absence of these >> advertisements implies that advertisement of the ELC is not supported. > > I added the suggested text, plus I added "OSPF" at the end. So the text is: > > "If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD advertise the > ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF. The absence of these > advertisements implies that advertisement of the ELC is not supported in > OSPF." > > I added similar text to ISIS ELC draft. > > thanks, > Peter > >> Not sure if that matches the intent though.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
