From: Acee Lindem <[email protected]> Sent: 20 December 2024 18:26 This email begins a 2 week WG Last Call for the following draft: "Prefix Flag Extension for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3" - draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags-03
Please review the document and indicate your support or objections by January 11th, 2025. The extra week is to allow for the holidays. <tp> First impression - needs tidying up 'there are not many undefined bits' How many? please work it out for me allowing for I-D work in progress and the like. Perhaps, 'At the time of writing, there are ...' better still, identify the bits /flield/ field / 'that are undefined as shown in Table 1.' well, no; undefined does not figure in Table 1 (but it should IMHO) If no flags are defined is it valid to send the Sub-TLV? 'An implementation that does not understand or support the Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV MUST ignore the TLV.' which is fine if that behaviour is already in place. What is the expected behaviour for Sub-TLV that is not recognised? where is it defined? And 'ignore the TLV' or 'ignore the Sub-TLV'? Tom Petch Thanks, Acee _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
