Hi Chris,

I've been following that thread 😊

IMHO it would depend on the nature of extension and seems not something that I 
would speculate about.


-----Original Message-----
From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
Sent: 12 March 2020 17:04
To: spr...@ietf.org
Cc: Chris Bowers <chrisbowers.i...@gmail.com>; lsr@ietf.org; Peter Psenak 
(ppsenak) <ppse...@cisco.com>; Bruno Decraene <bruno.decra...@orange.com>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] [spring] clarification of locator block and locator node in 
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming and 

Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> writes:

> [KT] The behaviors currently listed in the draft do not have an argument nor 
> is the use of B and N required for them. We cannot preclude a future use-case 
> or extension where such behaviors introduced are also applicable to ISIS. So 
> IMHO ruling such aspects out might not be the right thing to do from a 
> protocol extensibility perspective.

No opinion here on this sub-sub-TLV; however, it has been stated elsewhere that 
this document will be re-spun for each new behavior that is to be carried in 
IS-IS (not my personal preference, fwiw...).

[as WG member]
Lsr mailing list

Reply via email to