> An architectural argument can't also limit itself to the drafts in the title.
> If it sounded like the IANA registry was suggested as separate for BIER OSPF
> and BIER ISIS, then your attempt to reframe the conversation might be
> reasonable. Let me clarify - I see no current reason for an OSPF BAR
> registry and an ISIS BAR registry; it would just be a BAR registry. Perhaps
> that clarification is a good reason to get the IANA registry included in the
> next update?
There is no reason for an individual BIER OSPF and BIER ISIS registry. The
point is to align with what ever ISIS and OSPF are using to identify the
> The routing layer is separate from the BIER layer. The BAR is for the BIER
The underlay is separate from the BIER layer, and each underlay can carry BIER
specific information that is needed for for BIER to make the selection.
Isis-wg mailing list