Hi Dhruv, The counterpoint is that if tradition was enough to forbid us from adopting small improvements, there’d be a lot less progress. But it’s not a big deal, we can leave it to the discretion of the WG and authors. Regardless, a new version is needed to address Lars’s DISCUSS — I think all the necessary conversation has taken place, we just need version 08 with the agreed changes.
Thanks, —John > On Oct 21, 2022, at 12:43 AM, Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks John and Lars! > > I wonder though if it is a good idea to change in this one place, when every > other PCEP RFCs (including the base RFC 5440) uses - > > Unassigned flags MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be > ignored on receipt. > > > Thanks! > Dhruv > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 9:04 PM Lars Eggert <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2022-10-20, at 16:51, John Scudder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I read this comment differently. Here’s what I took it to mean. In the > > clause "Unassigned flags MUST be set to zero on transmission”, if you read > > that in the narrowest possible way, it might require an implementation to > > know what flags are unassigned, so that it can set them to zero on > > transmission. If the clause were changed to “Flags unsupported by the > > implementation MUST be set to zero on transmission” I think that would be > > responsive to (how I read) the comment. The same point would apply to > > Section 3.1. > > > > That’s just my reading of course and Lars should clarify as needed. > > This is exactly what I was trying to express, thanks. > > Lars _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
