Hi Tony, I understand the vendor position to protect the pre-standard > implementation. But I’m in the network operator position and I’m trying to > make the network as safe as possible. We’ll see what position the IETF will > take. > > You do not make the network safer by mandate. You make it safer by > writing more forgiving code. >
Hope you agree that above all you make network interop safer by writing deterministic protocol specifications. Unfortunately the subject one is not very deterministic. The section 5 says: Although MP-TLVs SHOULD NOT be sent unless the capacity of a single TLV (255 octets) is exceeded, receivers MUST NOT reject MP-TLVs if senders do not strictly adhere to this constraint. See Section 7.3 for guidance when sending MP-TLVs. If you replace "SHOULD NOT" above with "MUST NOT" perhaps the request for MUST to be able to disable MP-TLV (on a per TLV basis) would make a bit of a weaker case. But for now keeping SHOULD in both places (section 5 and 7.1) just opens room for individual vendor's interpretation and behaviours and are soft while MUST in any of those paragraphs would IMO help protocol robustness. Kind regards, Robert
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
