+1
On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 3:30 PM Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <
jorge.raba...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Hi Tulasi,
>
>
>
> Yes, there are implementations that follow that text you are highlighting
> (the one I’m aware of).
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> *From: *TULASI RAM REDDY
> *Date: *Wednesday, Sep
Thanks Jorge for the update.
Thanks,
Tulasi.
On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 3:30 PM Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <
jorge.raba...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Hi Tulasi,
>
>
>
> Yes, there are implementations that follow that text you are highlighting
> (the one I’m aware of).
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> *From: *T
Hi Tulasi,
Yes, there are implementations that follow that text you are highlighting (the
one I’m aware of).
Thanks.
Jorge
From: TULASI RAM REDDY
Date: Wednesday, September 25, 2024 at 10:45 PM
To: draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-a...@ietf.org
, bess@ietf.org ,
skr...@cisco.com , Jorge Rabadan (Nok
Resending with reply-all.
Thanks,
Tulasi.
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 10:46 PM TULASI RAM REDDY
wrote:
> Hi Ketan,
>
> Thanks for your confirmation. I agree with the proposal in the document,
> in case of mismatch we can't really use the SHL in Type 1 as it doesn't
> conform with Type3 AL but impl
Hi Tulasi,
The document is in the WGLC queue. We (authors) will refresh it shortly.
RFC8986 does not mandate a fixed size for ARG nor call for making it
configurable. The text that you highlight is simply bringing to notice such
a possibility and how to handle it.
Perhaps I am missing your quest
