Do not support its adoption.
The draft just enumerate the requirements of MP-TLV support for relevant TLVs, it is not the general solution to the issue. There is no practical way in the draft to assure the current and future implementation conforms to the newly defined explicit requirements, because the MP-TLV Support sub-TLV is not per-TLV basis, and as stated in the draft, one implementation declares support “MP-TLV” can’t assure it supports all relevant TLVs. ------“It is understood that in reality, a given implementation might limit MP-TLV support to particular TLVs based on the needs of the deployment scenarios in which it is used”-----Will there be many interoperability issues arises then? And also varies loop accidents within the network when all of vendors declare they support “MP-TLV” but not all of the relevant TLVs? Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Yingzhen Qu 发送时间: 2023年11月18日 1:24 收件人: [email protected]; lsr <[email protected]> 主题: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023) Hi, This begins a WG adoption call for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv: draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-04 - Multi-part TLVs in IS-IS (ietf.org) <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv/> Please send your support or objection to the list before December 9th, 2023. An extra week is allowed for the US Thanksgiving holiday. Thanks, Yingzhen
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
