Re: [Lsr] "Legal" endpoint behaviors [draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-06.txt]

> On Mar 11, 2020, at 10:38 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > wrote: > > Chris - > > >> >> Do you think we should get rid of the "used in" columns in the IS-IS TLV and >> sub-TLV registries? The documents that define those TLVs and sub-TLVs >> already indicate which PDUs and TLVs they go in, s

Re: [Lsr] [spring] clarification of locator block and locator node in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming and draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions

On 12/03/2020 12:33, Christian Hopps wrote: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) writes: [KT] The behaviors currently listed in the draft do not have an argument nor is the use of B and N required for them. We cannot preclude a future use-case or extension where such behaviors introduced are also appl

Re: [Lsr] clarification of locator block and locator node in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming and draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions

Hi Chris, On 12/03/2020 15:58, Chris Bowers wrote: Peter, I think that the SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV should be removed from draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions.  I think that we should leave the ability to include sub-sub-TLVs in the SRv6 End SID Sub-TLV, End.X SID Sub-TLV, and LAN End.