Hi Acee, > Speaking as working member: > > You've made it abundantly clear that you don't think like the ASLA encoding. > However, we have standardized the ASLA encoding in the LSR working group - > this is a done deal. You are free to propose an alternative but you this > should not be done after the fact in a WG document that contains > functionality the WG believes is useful. Also, any alternate proposals should > cover backward compatibility and migration.
I’m not sure that I’m parsing your comments correctly. We are not proposing an alternative to ASLA. Nor do we wish to. What we are proposing is a TLV that is not carried in ASLA. There is nothing after the fact about it. As this is a new TLV, there are no backwards compatibility or migration issues. As always, legacy nodes will (ok, should) ignore the unrecognized TLV. That said, I’m now VERY sure that I’m not understanding your comments. Could you please clarify? Regards, Tony _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
