Peter,
> I believe there is a subtle difference between what each of you is saying: > > a) Tony says that there may be many constraints used for a particular > flex-algo, so that we may not be able to fit them in a single FAD Sub-TLV. I > agree, we better address that. I will update the flex-algo draft accordingly. > > b) Gunter says that a particular Sub-TLV of the FAD Sub-TLV, on its own, may > not fit into a single FAD Sub-TLV. Although theoretically possible (with > SRLGs only for now, I believe), I don't feel like it's very realistic. > > I agree to address (a), not very enthusiastic about addressing (b). > > Please let me know what do you think. Thank you for bringing out that distinction. Yes, that’s accurate and an important distinction that I had completely missed. I think that both issues are worth addressing. I am thrilled that you’re willing to address (a). On (b), I agree that it’s an issue and one that is unlikely to be seen in practice. Still, someone has to write code. As my friend Fletch has always said: “The programmer has to fill in that else clause.” So I would like to encourage you to address it as well. Yes, I realize that it’s no fun, but it does deserve to be written down. Please feel free to borrow language from the multi-tlv draft. :) Regards, Tony _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
