From: Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> Sent: 10 December 2020 00:11
Speaking as WG member: Hi Chris, Tom, On 12/9/20, 6:03 AM, "Lsr on behalf of tom petch" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: From: Lsr <[email protected]> on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> Sent: 30 November 2020 18:14 Two thoughts isis-rmetric is a bit long as a prefix - I note that the examples use rm which is a bit short. Perhaps isis-rm I agree. te-metric contains the value if the sub-tlv is present. What if it is not present? I don’t see this described in RFC 8500 (while it is in the OSPF Reverse Metric draft). This needs to be resolved. Is there any way to tell if it is present or not? Just get the config using NETCONF. <tp> I know! it is just an aspect of NETCONF/YANG that I have never liked, fail danger perhaps. I like objects that have a value that means that this has no value, such as zero, minus one, maximum and so on but realise that this protocol is not one of those:-( Tom Petch Thanks, Acee Tom Petch As stated as the IETF 109 LSR WG meeting, we feel the IS-IS reverse metric augmentation is ready for publication. This begins a two week last call for the subject draft. Please indicate your support or objection on this list prior to 12:00 AM UTC on December 15th, 2020. Also, review comments are certainly welcome. Thanks, Acee _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
