On November 28, 2018 at 5:46:08 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ( [email protected]) wrote:
Les: Hi! As lead author on rfc7810bis I am happy to modify the language to be consistent with RFC7471. That seems like the far easier pathway so long as we have your assurance (which it seems we do) that this will not unduly delay progress of rfc7810bis. I already requested the start of the IETF LC for rfc7810bis. I don’t think the potential changes we’re talking about will be that significant to delay. I do find that the fact that you raised this issue in the context of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp rather confusing (though I can appreciate that it was your review of the idr draft that brought the discrepancy to your attention). Yes, draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp was simply first on my queue…so I read it first. It would have been less confusing – at least to me – if you had raised this point in a separate email regarding rfc7810bis. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/92-08uCr6-ctnRU9i3FHA-ucFEw Thanks! Alvaro.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
