Hi, Zhibo:
OK.
Regarding to the point #1, it is better to relax the description for more
broader applications of SRv6 SID information. You can also keep it in the
current status because it doesn’t not say “MUST only” be included in the
mentioned TLVs.
Regarding to point #2, using the newly
Huaimo -
While I thank you for your support of WG adoption, your description of the
purpose of the bis draft is not consistent with the goals defined in the draft
nor with the actual changes from RFC 8919.
Please see
Hi Everyone,
I support its adoption and have following comments.
The main purpose of the draft is to get rid of the ambiguity regarding
whether a link is enabled with a specific application such as RSVP-TE. A link
with attributes for SR-policy is assumed to be enabled with RSVP-TE even
The IESG has received a request from the Link State Routing WG (lsr) to
consider the following document: - 'IS-IS Extensions in Support of
Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and
GMPLS Traffic Engineering'
as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
LGTM, thanks.
—John
> On Aug 19, 2022, at 1:38 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> wrote:
>
> John -
>
> V3 of the draft has been posted which I believe addresses all of your
> comments.
>
> Please let me know if there are remaining issues.
>
> Note that a few additional format diffs were
Hi Aijun,
Thanks for your detailed review and please check inline below for responses.
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Aijun Wang
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 5:55 PM
To: 'Acee Lindem (acee)' ; 'lsr'
Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensi...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr]
Hi, All:
I have the following comments for this draft, and would like to support
its forwarding when the below concerns are addressed.
1. For SRv6 SID’s advertisement, I suggest we should also consider it is
advertised as sub-TLVs of OSPF-Stub-Link TLV, as proposed in
