The update version 13, just make the following unsupported declaration:
Note that support for MP-TLV may result in an implementation being
more robust in handling unexpected occurrences of MP-TLV.
There are more untrue and contrary descriptions within the revision document
after the IESG expert’s review.
It’s so ridiculous.
Best Regards
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表
[email protected]
发送时间: 2025年3月29日 16:41
收件人: Robert Raszuk <[email protected]>; Tony Li <[email protected]>; Les Ginsberg
<[email protected]>
抄送: The IESG <[email protected]>; [email protected]; lsr-chairs
<[email protected]>; lsr <[email protected]>; Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]>
主题: [Lsr] Re: Mohamed Boucadair's Yes on draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-11: (with
COMMENT)
Hi Les, all,
First, I confirm that my comment was exactly how Rob interpreted it, not what
was in Les example :-)
Putting that aside, I hear the argument raised by Tony and Chris. I consider
the pending comment close.
Les, I checked -13 and I’m fine with it. Thanks for the reactivity and for
accommodating.
Thank you all for the constructive discussion.
Cheers,
Med
De : Robert Raszuk <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
Envoyé : samedi 29 mars 2025 01:24
À : Tony Li <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
Cc : Les Ginsberg <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; BOUCADAIR
Mohamed INNOV/NET <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> >; The IESG <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> >; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> ; lsr-chairs <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> >; lsr <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >;
Yingzhen Qu <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
Objet : Re: [Lsr] Mohamed Boucadair's Yes on draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-11: (with
COMMENT)
Hi Tony,
Ok so the answer here is that since we have no upper bounds today on the number
of atomic TLVs just the fact that we go one level down and allow grouping
single TLV type into multiple parts causes not a significant risk one should
worry about.
If this is the answer I rest my case :)
Thx,
R.
On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 1:16 AM Tony Li <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
Hi Robert,
> Sorry if I was not very clear but my point was that MP-TLV may be coming in
> multiple LSPs - something which to the best of my understanding is not the
> case today with any TLV type. On that basis as LSP length natural boundary is
> gone it seems sky is the limit now.
This is incorrect. A TLV may appear in many different framgments. For
example, a router may have multiple adjacencies. These may be spread out
across fragments.
T
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
