Speaking as WG co-chair: I think we can move towards WG last call with this addition. Note that the document needs to be refreshed as it will expire soon.
Thanks, Acee On 6/27/16, 10:00 AM, "OSPF on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >Speaking as WG member: > >One area of mild contention with this draft has been whether the >advertisement that the link is being taken out of service needs to be >advertised beyond the link endpoint router (which will take the >appropriate action of advertising the maximum link metric in the reverse >direction). We have gotten somewhat entangled into use case discussions >and whether or not this is really necessary. > >What I’d like to propose is that offer the alternative of advertising the >OSPF RI LSA with link-scope (fully supported by RFC 7770). This way, the >advertisement could be restricted to the local link in situations where >the knowledge doesn’t really need to go anywhere else. Note that the >current text doesn’t prevent this so this is merely a matter of describing >the use case. > >Thanks, >Acee > >_______________________________________________ >OSPF mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
