Tony Przygienda <[email protected]> writes:
On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 7:52 AM Gyan Mishra <[email protected]> wrote: ... Gyan> What Bruno is trying to provide I think strengthens the draft with the MUST normative language for enable/disable configuration controls. As this is pre standard implementation if the devices go out of compliance immediately that is “ok” as I see it all during incubation period trailblazing the new features and comes with the territory. So they would just have to upgrade to RFC standard version to be back to compliance. more unwise words were seldom spoken
What is actually being said here, that in order to claim that one implements this new draft (once it becomes an RFC) one must implement it? I'm confused, as that's just reality, not sure what is "unwise". Thanks, Chris.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
