Hi Acee,
On 18/06/18 20:51 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Speaking as WG member, I support publication of the subject document. I
have the following comments:
1. The normative text saying that the TLV MUST be included needs to be
changed from section 3.1. I’m sure you didn’t mean this since LLS
itself isn’t mandatory and this isn’t backward compatible.
changed to SHOULD.
2. Add a reference to RFC 8379 to section 2 or a new section indicating
that this mechanism suffers from many of the same shortcomings as
using OSPF TE LSAs.
RFC8379 specifies how to advertise the local/remote interface ID for the
purpose of identifying the link by the remote routers. It does not
suggest to use the Extended Link Opaque LSA as a discovery mechanism to
find out what is the interface ID on the remote side of the link.
3. Remove RFC 5340 from the references as it is not referenced.
removed.
thanks,
Peter
I’m also send a couple editorial suggestions off list.
Thanks,
Acee
*From: *Lsr <[email protected]> on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)"
<[email protected]>
*Date: *Monday, June 18, 2018 at 12:07 PM
*To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
*Subject: *[Lsr] Working Group Last Call for OSPF LLS Extensions for
Local Interface ID Advertisement - draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-02
This begins an LSR WG last call for the subject draft. Please send your
comments to this list prior to 12:00 AM GMT, July 3^rd , 2018.
Thanks,
Acee
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
