Peter, > the combination is the (a) problem and that will be fixed. We are talking > problem (b) only now.
Ah, my apologies, I was unclear on the applicability of your statements. > I'm not trying under-specify how to deal with overflow - we need to specify > it, no disagreement there. I look forward to seeing a proposal. I propose allowing multiple FAD and concatenation of the contents. > What I'm trying to see of we need to support the "merge" at FAD sub-TLV level. I’ll agree that that’s lower priority. I think we should, as a matter of completeness. Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
