Hi Paul, Already done. Please see -12.
Thanks, Tony > On Jan 21, 2024, at 4:48 PM, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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] > <mailto:[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
