Thanks!
Alissa

> On May 21, 2020, at 3:51 AM, Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Alissa,
> 
> On 20/05/2020 21:57, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker wrote:
>> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: No Objection
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc/
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> I wasn't clear on where the  thread ended up from the Gen-ART review, but I'm
>> nevertheless suggesting some text below to resolve the main sticking point.
>> OLD
>> If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD advertise the
>> ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF.
>> NEW
>> If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD advertise the
>> ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF. The absence of these
>> advertisements implies that advertisement of the ELC is not supported.
> 
> I added the suggested text, plus I added "OSPF" at the end. So the text is:
> 
> "If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD advertise the 
> ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF. The absence of these 
> advertisements implies that advertisement of the ELC is not supported in 
> OSPF."
> 
> I added similar text to ISIS ELC draft.
> 
> thanks,
> Peter
> 
>> Not sure if that matches the intent though.

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to