Rob - So long as the WG is in agreement that what we are discussing is simply "best practice" - and that there is no interoperability issue - then I think we should have little trouble converging on text which is agreeable to everyone.
Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Shakir [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:38 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: identifying IP address of targeted LDP session in draft-ietf- > rtgwg-remote-lfa-00 > > Hi Les, > > Apologies for the delay in responding. > > On 13 Dec 2012, at 22:33, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Frankly, I find the discussion of a preference algorithm in selecting the > endpoint address as useful/interesting - but much more appropriate for a > vendor deployment guide than a normative specification. Vendors often are > faced with idiosyncratic deployment constraints from their customers which > need to be accommodated. In which case responsive vendors will provide > various knobs to allow override of default behavior - while retaining the > ease of "zero config" for the majority of customers. This is simply good > business. We should not attempt to "standardize" this. > > I agree that there are likely to be a variety of requirements, and I am not > saying that we need a MUST in this document - but some guidance to > implementors on this kind of deployment consideration is always useful from > my perspective (some guidance as to what *could* be best practice, tends to > result in a higher probability that different vendor's kit actually > interoperates with each other). > > Cheers, > r. _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
