Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[email protected]> writes:
Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lsr-yang-isis-reverse-metric-04: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-yang-isis-reverse-metric/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- whole-lan is only applicable to multi-access interfaces. I was expecting something similar to how "priority" is defined (in the main module), but I can't find that here. Am I missing something?
Do you mean to make it conditional based on the interface type? I looked at doing this and I believe it would involve breaking apart the groupings, then duplicating that grouping data into received in TLV vs configuration, then leaving out the W flag bit config from the configuration grouping, and then conditionally augmenting that W bit config back in at each of the three locations under the interface. This seems like a lot of "inelegant" changes to add this automated check to the YANG. The implementations are already bound by RFC8500 to DTRT WRT the W bit and LAN/Non-LAN interfaces. I think perhaps that's enough. Thanks, Chris.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
