If some folks think that there needs to be a correction or addition to
the architecture, the best thing to do would be to write a new draft and
post it for discussion.
This appears to be a substantive technical issue, which is not
appropriate for an erratum. It also doesn't seem appropriate f
Ice's reasoning makes sense to me.
On 2/15/2018 3:11 AM, IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand) wrote:
Hi Folks,
I support 16 bits because of the following reasons.
For me it would make sense to align the Algorithm value to the "IGP
Algorithm" registry. This registry is defined in:
https://tools.ietf.
brand Wijnands
*Cc:* Greg Shepherd ; b...@ietf.org;
isis-wg@ietf.org; Xiejingrong ;
arkadiy.gu...@thomsonreuters.com; Eric C Rosen
*Subject:* Re: [Bier] [Isis-wg] WGLC :
draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-07.txt
Well,
Now, there are multiple treads being discussed here under one topic:
- how b
On 2/20/2018 12:56 PM, arkadiy.gu...@thomsonreuters.com wrote:
I personally like Eric proposed option -two independed 1Byte filed one
for IGP Algo and another one for BUAM : the "BIER Underlay Algorithm
Modifier" registry. The way the underlay paths are computed for a
given BIER sub-domain i
