Ice, 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.
Regards, Alia On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 8:58 PM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > Ice, > > 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". > > Regards, > Alia > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 8:15 PM, IJsbrand Wijnands <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Alia, >> >> > 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 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. >> >> Thx, >> >> Ice. >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
