At this point in the process, it would be necessary to make an overwhelming
technical argument - that would sway almost the whole
WG to your perspective.
I see you saying that you have a personal preference for having the IGP
Algorithm registry also be used for the BAR registry. While
I do, of course, respect where you have technical expertise, my response -
particularly from a process perspective - is "that's nice".
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 8:15 PM, IJsbrand Wijnands <i...@cisco.com> wrote:
> > An architectural argument can't also limit itself to the drafts in the
> > 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 layer.
> 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