Hi Aijun, > If the MP-TLV support capability declaration doesn’t mean support all > relevant TLVs, and conform to the draft can’t assure the interoperability, > then, what the purpose of this draft?
We are documenting existing behavior, codifying what we believe most implementations are already doing, and documenting the direction that we think we should be going. > If you persist this direction, as proposed by Bruno, I think that documents > the capabilities(includes the definition of the key) for every TLV in one > Yang file(draft-isis-pics-multi-TLV”?) maybe more better. Then YANG model for reporting capabilities is a mostly orthogonal document. > The operator can compare such yang files from different vendor, and if they > support the multipart of the same TLV, and the key is same, then the operator > can safely enable the sending and receiving of the multi-part of this TLV. That alone is not sufficient. > Or else, we should think other solution to solve this issue. There is no other solution. Regards, Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
