These changes look fine to me. Please cut another draft and I will update my ballot to No Objection.
Paul On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 4:15 PM Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > On second thought, I would like to retract and amend part of my answer to > Paul. > > > >> I have a few minor discusses, which could be just because I'm not an > ISIS > >> expert. Please bear with me :) > >> > >> Multiple proxy system identifiers in a single area is a > >> misconfiguration and each unique occurrence SHOULD be logged. > >> > >> This does not really answer what systems should do in this case? Use > none > >> of them? What would the implication be? Use the one advertised by most > nodes? > >> What would the risk be with that? The answers would be great additions > to the > >> Security Considerations :) > > > > > > I propose to amend this to read: > > > > Multiple proxy system identifiers in a single > > area is a misconfiguration and each unique occurrence > > SHOULD be logged and the Area Leader MUST NOT generate the > > Proxy LSP. > > > My proposal is unnecessarily draconian and disruptive. A better approach > would be: > > Multiple proxy system identifiers in a single > area is a misconfiguration and each unique occurrence > SHOULD be logged. Systems should use the proxy system > identifier advertised by the Area Leader. > > I will maintain an increased level of caffeination. My apologies for the > confusion. > > Regards, > Tony > > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
