I forgot to add - of course - that I understand you have already stated
that you don't have any technical objections to the current status.
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 8:58 PM, Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 algorithm.
>> > 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