Hi Alvaro, On Jul 2, 2012, at 7:15 AM, Retana, Alvaro wrote:
>> -----Original Message----- >> From: Shishio Tsuchiya [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 12:54 AM > > Shishio: > > ... >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis-01#section-4.1 >> I think maximum both metric and R-bit should be equivalence in today >> and future. >> In order to avoid confusing for people,I recommend >> -remove the sentence from abstract. >> "However, OSPF does not specify a standard way to accomplish this." > > I will remove that. > >> -move R-bit to solution from Deployment Considerations >> ex.) >> 3. Proposed Solution >> 3-1.maximum metric >> 3-2.R-bit >> >> What do you think of my recommendation? > > 3173 is about documenting the MaxLinkMetric approach, which is why we chose > to reference the R-bit as other solutions. 3137 is not about comparing or > describing the full functionality of the different approaches. The main we respin RFCs is to incorporate changes and there is no reason not to document the R-bit mechanism to accomplish the OSPFv3 stub router function. Thanks, Acee > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
