Hi, I support the adoption of draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols as a foundation for a WG item. A per-link "Capability sub-TLV" (the term "protocol" might be too specific here) really adds a missing piece after RFC 5073.
Once WG document, we may discuss an additional use case suggested by that RFC: on top of RSVP-TE support, distinguish between 3209-only and 3473-capable. Indeed, there are parameters like SRLGs that were defined as part of GMPLS extensions: an implementation (wildly) guessing RFC 3473 support from that would not be fully wrong. Similarly, an implementation may perfectly support 3473 even if it has not explicitly advertise a PSC switching capability on a given link. Let us make these explicit! My 2 cents, Julien Oct. 07, 2017 - Christian Hopps: > Hi Folks, > > The authors have requested the IS-IS WG adopt > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols/ > > as a working group document. Please indicate your support or no-support > for taking on this work. > > Authors: Please indicate your knowledge of any IPR related to this work > to the list as well. > > Thanks, > Chris & Hannes. > > > _______________________________________________ > Isis-wg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
