I agree, the granularity would depend on the feature/RFC.
Another aspect I have seen in TLV implementations is, Receiving side processing
is supported
But sending side isn’t. It may be useful to introduce this sending
support/receiving support notion in the
Model.
Rgds
Shraddha
Juniper
Acee –
Thanx for the comments – inline.
From: Acee Lindem
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 2:33 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Loa Andersson ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Question on draft-qgp-lsr-isis-pics-yang
Speaking as a WG contributor:
Hi Les,
I think a simpler name is better
Speaking as a co-author of the draft, I'm open to name suggestions.
As for granularity, I'd say this really varies per RFC/feature. We want to
make it useful for operators but not too tedious to implement.
Realistically, we won't be able to have modules for all existing RFCs, so
it's more about
Hi Acee,
I concur that a simpler name is better and am fine with what you propose. Or
pretty much anything other than ‘PICS’. :-)
I disagree that feature level granularity is sufficient. Example: suppose an
implementation supports traffic engineering. Is that sufficient for an
operator? Is
Speaking as a WG contributor:
Hi Les,
I think a simpler name is better - perhaps ietf-isis-feature-support.yang with
YANG prefix isis-fs would be better. Which brings me to my next and more
important point…
Like carbon neutrality, everyone at the LSR WG meeting who had an opinion
thought
Loa -
I agree with you that simply "IS-IS Support" may not be the best choice.
Although, the meeting minutes have not yet been posted, as I recall my response
to Tony Li's suggestion of "IS-IS Support" was "Yes - something like that."
The draft authors have not yet discussed this - but we will
Les,
Thanks for the reply.
Please see inline [Bruno2]
Orange Restricted
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 5:32 PM
To: DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET ; Christian Hopps
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv and "backwards compatibility"
Bruno –
Bruno –
Thanx for the thoughtful comments.
Please see responses inline.
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 6:40 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Christian Hopps
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv and "backwards compatibility"
Les, all
Les, all
Please see my 2 cents (operator's feedback) inline [Bruno]
(to be clear, I'm not doing any comparison with any other proposal)
Orange Restricted
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 4:13 PM
To: Christian Hopps
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re:
Working Group,
During the presentation of draft-qgp-lsr-isis-pics-yang there was a
rather strong opposition in the chat against using the ISO-term "PICS"
in an IETF document.
I think the term "Support" was suggested (excuse me if I missed
something), but I'm not that impressed, and would
10 matches
Mail list logo
