Thanks Ketan for your thoughts on this topic.
Understood as this “update” / “obsolete” topic is an important IETF topic
that should be uniform across all WGs.
Kind Regards
Gyan
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 10:25 PM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
wrote:
> Hi Gyan,
>
>
>
> By the logic that you have
Hi Gyan,
Thanks for your reply. So we (and others) are on the same page about the
resources related functionality introduced to Flex-Algo: it need to be
discussed separately from this draft.
If the authors agree with this, can this be reflected in an update of this
draft?
Best regards,
Jie
Hi Gyan,
By the logic that you have shared, almost all OSPF RFCs after 2328 would have
been mentioned as “updates” for it. However, there is only a select few that
“update” RFC 2328 and if we look at them closely, they alter/change the
contents of behavior in RFC 2328 in some way. At least
Hi Jimmy
Please see my comments in-line:
Thanks
Gyan
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 4:20 AM Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
> Hi Gyan,
>
>
>
> Please see some comments inline:
>
>
>
> *From:* Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Gyan Mishra
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 10, 2021 1:05 PM
> *To:*
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.
Title : Algorithm Related IGP-Adjacency SID Advertisement
Authors : Shaofu Peng
Ran
Hi Ketan
In some cases an RFC can update an existing RFC making the other obsolete
if the specification changes completely rewrite in the update, however an
update could also as you pointed out in this case be an add on feature to a
base specification that is not changing and so in this case the
I agree with Ketan.
Thanks,
Acee
From: Lsr on behalf of "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)"
Date: Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 11:10 AM
To: Gyan Mishra
Cc: "lsr@ietf.org" , Christian Hopps ,
"peng.sha...@zte.com.cn"
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Call for "Algorithm Related IGP-Adjacency
SID
The document is adopted. We have enough support, and given the development
email on the adoption call thread clearly people willing to work on the
document.
Authors please resubmit as draft-ietf-lsr-algorithm-related-adjacency-sid-00
Thanks,
Acee & Chris.
Christian Hopps writes:
Hi
Hi Gyan,
This document does not even “update” the LSR Flex-Algo draft since it is
introducing something new and on top. It does not change what’s in the LSR
Flex-Algo draft.
This document would be pretty much independent and an optional/add-on element
on top of the LSR Flex-Algo solution.
Hi Ketan
See in-line
Thanks
Gyan
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 4:40 AM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
wrote:
> One quick clarification on the following:
>
> Does this draft update the SR IGP extensions for SR-MPLS RFC 8665 8666
> 8667.
> [PSF] Yes.
> KT> This draft proposes something new (an
One quick clarification on the following:
Does this draft update the SR IGP extensions for SR-MPLS RFC 8665 8666 8667.
[PSF] Yes.
KT> This draft proposes something new (an Algo-specific Adj-SID) and their
relevant signalling extensions for the IGPs. It does not change anything in the
RFCs
Hi Gyan,
Please see some comments inline:
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 1:05 PM
To: Christian Hopps
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Call for "Algorithm Related IGP-Adjacency
SID Advertisement"
I support WG
Hi Gyan,
Thanks for your support.
Please see inline [PSF]
Regards,
PSF
--原始邮件--
发件人：GyanMishra
收件人：Christian Hopps;
抄送人：lsr@ietf.org;
日 期 ：2021年06月10日 13:05
主 题 ：Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Call for "Algorithm Related IGP-Adjacency SID
Advertisement"
13 matches
Mail list logo
