Hi Paul,
Already done. Please see -12.
Thanks, I had a look. Why did the MUST get changed to a SHOULD? It is okay to state a MUST as well as an action when that MUST is violated ?
Or was there another reason to change it ?
Paul
Thanks, Tony
These changes look fine to me. Please cut another draft and I will update my ballot to No Objection.
Paul
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
