On October 6, 2022 at 6:58:18 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
Peter: ... > > (1) The text above instructs implementations of [RFC8667] and > > [RFC8665] to stop advertising the specific Flex-Algorithm value, but > > those RFCs (if I remember correctly) don't say anything about *not* > > advertising the SR-Algorithm TLV/sub-TLV. This document should > > formally Update those RFCs. > > ##PP2 > advertising the SR-Algorithm TLV is optional. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8665#section-3.1 > > "The SR-Algorithm TLV is optional. It SHOULD only be advertised once > in the Router Information Opaque LSA." > > > Advertising any set of algorithms in this TLV is supported. A router is > free to add or remove any algorithm value from the TLV. This is all well > supported by both above mentioned RFCs. I don't see any need for update. Even if optional, that concerns me is the contents of the TLV. Looking at them, both RFCs say: "The SR-Algorithm TLV allows a router to advertise the algorithms currently used by the router..." Sure, there's a connection between "MUST NOT announce" (from 5.3) and "currently used". You're right, we don't need an update. > > (2) The text related to the Update should be in §11, which is where > > the participation advertisement is specified. Text should also be > > added to §11.2 to indicate that other data-planes have to do the same > > thing. > > ##PP2 > I have added following to the section 11: > > "Advertisement of the participation for any particular Flex-Algorithm > in any data-plane is subject to the condition specified in > Section 5.3." > > Would that be sufficient? Yes, that's fine. I'm ok with the other changes too. I'll clear my DISCUSS. Thanks!! Alvaro. _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
