Alvaro - > -----Original Message----- > From: Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 10:28 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]> > Cc: Paul Wouters <[email protected]>; [email protected]; lsr- > [email protected]; [email protected]; Eric Vyncke > (evyncke) > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Rob Wilton (rwilton) > <[email protected]>; Lars Eggert <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: RE: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04: > (with > DISCUSS) > > On September 26, 2022 at 5:17:12 PM, Les Ginsberg wrote: > > > Les: > > The text you proposed is...ok. Just one minor comment: the router ID > doesn't have to be "globally unique", just unique within the IS-IS > domain. I'll clear my DISCUSS.
[LES:] Thanx - I will correct the text before publishing. > > > I'm disappointed that the resulting recommendation is driven by legacy > implementations. Requiring a specific value may not be the best > answer in all cases (hence my original question), but making > accommodations is not better. [LES:] Understood - but this should not be of great concern. So long as the address used is unique/stable whether it matches the Router ID or not won’t affect operation. Would it have been simpler if we could have said "Use the value in TLV134/140"? Absolutely - but another address with the same characteristics will work just as well. Les > > [I don't expect an answer; I'm just documenting my opinion for the archive.] > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
