Ok…let’s move forward. No need to add more text. Alvaro.
On March 23, 2020 at 10:36:42 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) ([email protected]) wrote: Hi Alvaro, On 3/23/20, 5:17 AM, "Peter Psenak" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Alavaro, On 20/03/2020 19:23, Alvaro Retana wrote: > On March 20, 2020 at 10:34:59 AM, Peter Psenak wrote: > > > Peter: > > >>>>> I don't really see why one would affect the other. >>>> >>>> I agree. BMI-MSD is an egress capability and ERLD-MSD is an ingress >>>> capability. While they may be related in the internal ASIC implementation, >>>> they are independent from a capability perspective. >>> >>> Please write that then. >> >> there are many MSDs defined already, are we going to write that the new >> MSD type is not interacting with any other MSD each time we define a new >> one? > > Yes, when they could be related, we are. More importantly, the reason > why the will not interact, which is what Acee’s text points to. honestly I do not see a reason to say that they do not interact. Because if I use your logic I would have to mention hundred other node capabilities that ERLD-MSD is not interacting with. My logic is that if something interacts it needs to be specified, if it does not, it does not need to be. I agree. It seems like a slippery slope to specifically call out protocol elements which not related from a protocol standpoint. Thanks, Acee > > BTW, according to the registry there are only 2 MSDs defined: > https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp-msd-types there are more defined for SRv6 - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-06. thanks, Peter > > > Alvaro. > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
