Version 21 of the draft has just been uploaded, I removed the sentence
“IGPs with SR extensions...are examples of MCCs.”.
as you suggested since I overlooked removing it in version 20 which was
uploaded few hours ago
Thanks
Ahmed
On 4/10/19 3:05 PM, Alvaro Retana wrote:
On April 10, 2019 at 5:46:56 PM, Vigoureux, Martin (Nokia -
FR/Paris-Saclay) (martin.vigour...@nokia.com
<mailto:martin.vigour...@nokia.com>) wrote:
Martin:
Hi!
It looks to me that you don’t disagree with what is written in the
draft but rather with the fact that the draft may suggest that IGPs
should do things which are in fact not specified in the IGPs drafts.
I think this point covers 1.1 to 1.4
Assuming that I’m correct, I believe that in order to clear the
misunderstanding authors could simply remove the sentence: “IGPs with
SR extensions...are examples of MCCs.”.
…and probably clean up some other text, for example, §2.10.1
references I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions specifically.
Bottom line, I think you’re right.
On 1.5. I don’t think there is a conflict. It does not contradict
8402. It is not saying “An IGP Node-SID SHOULD NOT be associated with
a prefix …”
The way I see it is that this is a belt and suspenders approach. The
base req says MUST NOT and this req says “check if this req is
respected”.
I read this document as saying “check, but you may have reasons not
to”… IMHO, there’s no reason to specify the behavior here again, if
it’s already specified in rfc8402.
Of course this is only my view. I expect authors to have their own.
I’m sure they will. ;-)
Thanks!
Alvaro.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
