Dear Abhay, Karsten, Thanks for the comments.
My quick answers: For - 1. As Karsten said we discussed this offline and agreed that it's applicable to IPv4 AFs possible through RFC 5838. Thx. 2. Agree. We will correct this. -- Uma C. From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Karsten Thomann Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 2:21 PM To: ospf@ietf.org Cc: draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-addr...@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address About your comments: 1. I've raised that question already june 8th onlist, but the discussion ended off list waiting for an answer from a co-author 2. Will check it tomorrow with some more time I support making it a WG document, but would also like to get 1. clarified before WG adoption, but thats up to the WG consensus Regards Karsten Am Montag, 25. August 2014, 12:08:32 schrieb Abhay Roy: This is a simple document with a few strong drivers (ELC and S-BFD) requiring it.. Please share your support or objections in making it a WG document. Regards, -Abhay On 8/25/14, 11:57 AM, Abhay Roy wrote: [speaking as WG member] Two comments.. 1. Section 3 has this text - "This TLV is only applicable to OSPFv2.". I believe, this should also be applicable to RFC5838, i.e. for IPv4 AF's 2. Section 3 and 4 describes the scope as SHOULD be domain-wide. I personally don't see any real use cause of any lessor scope (Area or Link) since we have mechanisms to generate routable IP address for those scopes already. So I would suggest we limit the scope of this document to be "MUST be domain-wide". Any concerns with that? Regards, -Abhay _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org<mailto:OSPF@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
