Hi All,
Unless there’s any objection I’ll mark this Verified on Monday.
—John
> On May 7, 2021, at 4:12 PM, RFC Errata System
> wrote:
>
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9013,
> "OSPF Advertisement of Tunnel
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9013,
"OSPF Advertisement of Tunnel Encapsulations".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6576
--
Type: Editorial
Reported by:
+1
Cheers,
Jeff
On May 7, 2021, 9:53 AM -0700, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
, wrote:
> As has been mentioned in this thread, the need for the prefix-attributes
> sub-TLV to correctly process leaked advertisements is not unique to the
> Locator TLV. The reason prefix-attributes TLV was created was
Speaking as WG contributor:
From: Lsr on behalf of "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
Date: Friday, May 7, 2021 at 12:53 PM
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" , Alvaro
Retana , "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" ,
"lsr@ietf.org"
Cc: Christian Hopps ,
"draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensi...@ietf.org"
, Gunter Van
As has been mentioned in this thread, the need for the prefix-attributes
sub-TLV to correctly process leaked advertisements is not unique to the Locator
TLV. The reason prefix-attributes TLV was created was to address the same gap
with IP/IPv6 reachability advertisements.
And I think by now
Hi Peter,
I agree that the support for the Prefix Attribute Flags TLV is required in the
Locator TLV.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana
Sent: 07 May 2021 19:23
To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) ; lsr@ietf.org
Cc: cho...@chopps.org; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensi...@ietf.org; Van
On May 3, 2021 at 5:17:58 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
> Technically I agree with you and if everybody agrees, I'm fine to
> enforce the presence of the Prefix Attribute Flags TLV in the Locator TLV.
So...what does everyone else think?
We need to close on this point before the IESG evaluates the
