Hi Peter and all, > On Jun 8, 2023, at 2:43 AM, Peter Psenak <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> A node MUST participate in a Flex-Algorithm to be: >> - Able to compute path for such Flex-Algorithm >> - Part of the topology for such Flex-Algorithm >> >> This is an odd use of MUST. > > what exactly is odd in it?
I don’t know what Paul found odd about it, but now that I’m looking at it afresh, I also think it’s odd. My reason is that it’s not expressing a requirement, it’s expressing a statement of fact, a natural consequence. An analogy would be if we said “if you let go of your coffee cup as you’re lifting it, it MUST fall down”. You don’t need a MUST there, gravity doesn’t care about your rules. To continue the analogy, a more usual use of MUST would be to express an actual requirement on the implementor — “you MUST NOT drink your coffee through a straw”. I haven’t gone and re-checked in the doc to be sure, but as I recall, it’s not possible for a node to be part of the topology for a given FA unless it participates in the FA, and this would be true whether the quoted MUST were there or not. $0.02, —John _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
