Is there any method to indicate or negotiate the support of ISO10589/RFC5304/RFC6233 because they are not back compatible? What will be the consequence when not all of the routers within the IGP domain support the same RFC? Will it valuable to add more clarification for the above incompatible scenario, instead of saying "... ... therefore can only be safely enabled when all nodes support the extensions"?
Best Regards. Aijun Wang China Telecom -----邮件原件----- 发件人: lsr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Christian Hopps 发送时间: 2020年1月3日 3:07 收件人: lsr@ietf.org 抄送: lsr-...@ietf.org; Christian Hopps; Antoni Przygienda 主题: [Lsr] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv This begins a 2 week WG Last Call, ending after Jan 16th, 2020, for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv/ Tony P (other authors already responded during the adoption poll), please indicate your knowledge of any IPR related to this work to the list as well. Thanks, Chris & Acee. _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
