Sorry, past the two weeks, but hopefully benign textual comments:
We tried to find an explicit statement about the scope of BIER TLVs - eg:
are they meant to stay within an area, have some redistribution across
areas/levels or not.
Tony said WG agreement was to have these TLV be flooded across t
rom: BIER [mailto:bier-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tony Przygienda
> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 5:17 AM
> To: Toerless Eckert
> Cc: Hannes Gredler (han...@gredler.at); Greg Shepherd; b...@ietf.org;
> isis-wg@ietf.org list; Christian Hopps
> Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier
gt;
>Les
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Toerless Eckert [mailto:t...@cs.fau.de]
> > Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 6:34 AM
> > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> > Cc: Tony Przygienda; Hannes Gredler (han...@gredler.at); Greg Shepherd;
> > b...
"current status".
Maybe folks should ask themselves:
Whats the worst case that could happen when we stick to "current status" ?
IMHO, we can do whatever we want with future work in a backward compatible
fashion and would at most have wasted 7 bits of BAR field. Thats not bad
enough to delay the
