WG Member Hat: I think the un-adopted 5G draft should be left out of any justification for adopting the stub link draft.
Chair Hat: One un-adopted draft using another un-adopted draft cannot serve as the justification to adopt the referenced draft. If that worked then 2 drafts could refer to each other and that would justify them both being adopted. Thanks, Chris. > On Jan 13, 2022, at 9:44 PM, Aijun Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Finally, there is the relationship between this draft and >> draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute – which continues to mystify me. Given that >> the latest version of the 5G draft only defines a new metric to be >> advertised in Prefix Reachability advertisements, I have no idea what the >> relationship between the two drafts may be. > [WAJ]No. It gives two kinds of proposals for the new metric. Please see > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-03#section-7 > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-03#section-7>. > You may ignore it. > Actually, I prefer to advertising the edge server related information via the > Stub-Link TLV. The advantage of such approaches is that it can contain more > granular information, not only the aggregated cost. >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
