Hi Aijun, Can you clarify what you mean by "inconsistencies"?
Also, you are referring the old version of OSPFv3 SR draft before it was aligned with the OSPFv2 SR draft. Please check https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-11#section-6.1 OSPF and ISIS are different protocols and there are some differences between them. I would not call them inconsistencies. BGP-LS spec refers to the individual IGP drafts for interpretation of flags. So please specifically point out what inconsistency you are referring to. Thanks, Ketan From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Aijun Wang Sent: 02 April 2018 14:23 To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: [Lsr] Inconsistence regarding the definition of "Adj-SID Sub-TLV" between OSPF and ISIS extension for Segment Routing Hi, All: We found there were some inconsistences for the definition of "Adjacency Segment Identifier" between OSPF and ISIS extension for segment routing, please see the link below for comparison. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-15#section-2.2.1 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-10#section-7.1 Here we want to know is there any reason for this inconsistence? We think this inconsistence can easily cause error for BGP-LS implementation for segment routing extension, as that defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-04#section-2.2.1, which is similar with ISIS extension for SR, but different from OSPF extension for SR. Do we need to make them consistent? It seems change the definition in OSPF extension may be less influence for the existing related drafts. Best Regards. Aijun Wang Network R&D and Operation Support Department China Telecom Corporation Limited Beijing Research Institute,Beijing, China..
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr