Hi Murray, Thank you for your comments.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Section 7 creates a registry whose policy is partly Expert Review, but doesn't > give any particular guidance to the Designated Experts about what qualifying > criteria might be. Are there any that should be included? I also suggest > removing the names of proposed designated experts; that's appropriate for the > shepherd writeup or an email and doesn't need to be in the document directly. Names removed. I’ve got no specific criteria that I’d like to suggest. > The SHOULD in Section 4.2 is bare. When might an implementer or operator > deviate from that advice? If there's no legitimate condition, maybe it should > be a MUST, or if it really doesn't matter, a MAY. In this particular case, the primary reason would be a reconfiguration of the domain. Other than operational consistency, there is no good reason to make this a ‘MUST’. Everything should operate fine if the configurations are inconsistent. The information should be taken from the Area Leader and the remaining information should be ignored. > I actually have the same question about most of the 30+ SHOULDs in this > document. I wasn't able to tell just from the text in many cases what damage > to interoperability I might trigger if I deviate from the advice. And in the > aggregate, as an implementer, I could do none of them and still claim I'm > implementing this specification. Is that intentional? Yes. We like to be as liberal as possible. Regards, Tony _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
