From: Acee Lindem
Sent: 12 December 2023 22:25
Hi Tom,
> On Dec 11, 2023, at 7:45 AM, tom petch wrote:
Acee
top posting since most of my comments are addressed in -25 (which I have
reviewed)
Renaming the YANG module is a pain but probably needs doing on the assumption
that there will be a
> On Dec 30, 2023, at 06:56, tom petch wrote:
>
> Going through ospf-sr-yang-25 (and no, I do not want a new version for
> Christmas!) it seems to me that RFC8666 updates, RFC8665 even if the metadata
> does not mention it.
>
> RFC8665 says
> " AF: Address family for the prefix.
I think that the treatment of AF in this I-D needs more thought.
It is perhaps unfortunate that SR has created a new register of AF to go with
those in RFC5838, RFC8349 and so on but I take that as a given from RFC8665,
RFC8666.
I think that this I-D needs to spell that out
'The AF defined in
Hi Tom,
> On Jan 1, 2024, at 07:34, tom petch wrote:
>
> From: Acee Lindem
> Sent: 12 December 2023 22:25
>
> Hi Tom,
>
>> On Dec 11, 2023, at 7:45 AM, tom petch wrote:
>
> Acee
>
> top posting since most of my comments are addressed in -25 (which I have
> reviewed)
>
> Renaming the
From: Yingzhen Qu
Sent: 30 December 2023 21:11
Hi Tom,
Sorry, but I don't understand your question. RFC8665 is for OSPFv2, and RFC8666
is for OSPFv3. While in both cases, the TLV name is "Extended Prefix Range
TLV", one is for OSPFv2 extended prefix LSA, the other may be advertised in:
