Tony - > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Li <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 8:44 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-white-distoptflood- > 00.txt > > > > >> 3)The adjacency formation logic discussed in Section 2 isn’t directly > relevant > >> to calculating a flooding topology. There are existing implementations > which > >> use the techniques you define as a means of reducing redundant flooding > >> associated with adjacency bringup when there are parallel links between > two > >> nodes. Note this can be (and is) done without requiring protocol > >> extensions/specification i.e., a node can do this today without introducing > >> any interoperability issues. So while this is definitely a good idea, it > >> isn’t > >> directly related to the work on flooding topologies and I think is better > >> removed from the draft. > > > > Okay -- it seems like this technique is not documented anyplace, and could > be used for all adjacencies. > > > I’m going to risk disagreeing with Les again
[Les:] :-) and suggest that this should be > documented. It need not be in this draft, but it is useful to have in an RFC > somewhere. [Les:] If someone wants to write this up in a draft that's fine with me - but it should be an Informational/BCP draft. My point in the context of this thread is that it isn’t directly related to flooding optimization work and therefore doesn’t belong in such drafts. Les > > Tony > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
