Chris - I am continuing to think on this - based both on Bruno's input and now your input.
However, this would seem to potentially put the WG in the role of being asked to pass judgment on whether a given implementation's configuration options are conformant or not. This is not a role I want to play - nor is it a responsibility I think the WG should take on. I would be interested in your thoughts in this regard (with or without your WG chair hat on). Thanx. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Hopps <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, September 2, 2024 9:06 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > <[email protected]>; Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]>; lsr > <[email protected]>; lsr-chairs <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv (7/1/2024 - > 7/15/2024) > > > > > On Sep 2, 2024, at 11:38, [email protected] wrote: > > > > It is not within the purview of an RFC to mandate that an implementation > have a particular knob. > > [Bruno] > > • According to which document /rule? > > [as wg-member] > > Regardless of whether we choose to add this requirement, I'm pretty sure it's > fine to mandate that something be configurable (e.g., disable/enable) in an > RFC. I haven't done a search but I definitely have seen this in other > documents. > > What this would be saying is that in order to claim support for RFCXXXX one > must have the given configuration option. > > Thanks, > Chris. > [as wg-member] _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
