Yes, it basically said, you MUST do this protocol to get this protocol. Sent using a virtual keyboard on a phone
> On Jun 8, 2023, at 09:05, John Scudder <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
