Xiaohu –
I also point out that there are at least two existing drafts which specifically
address IS-IS flooding reduction in CLOS networks and do so in greater detail
and with more robustness than what is in your draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-distoptflood/
Bruno –
You began your comments in the context of the adoption thread (Subject: RE:
[Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 -
12/09/2023)).
I note that you subsequently started a new thread with new (Subject:
draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv).
But as the new thread
Huaimo -
Every statement you make below is false.
These points have been discussed - in WG meetings, on the mailing list, and in
private conversations.
But you persist in repeating false claims.
This is not helpful.
You are, of course, entitled to have whatever opinion you choose regarding MP
Reviewer: Daniele Ceccarelli
Review result: Has Issues
- General: The term and concept of Enhanced VPN is being discussed in TEAS as
part of the WG last call. I suggest to follow that thread and align the draft
with whatever output will be agreed. - General: i would suggest to change the
title
Hi, Acee:
I have uploaded the updated version of draft, to address your concerns.
The major update contents are the followings:
1) Separate the OSPF and IS-IS protocol extension for stub-link attributes,
redefines the relevant Sub-TLVs to conform the current OSPF/IS-IS format.
2) Change
Reviewer: Shuping Peng
Review result: Has Issues
Hello,
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request.
Internet-Draft draft-wang-lsr-stub-link-attributes-08.txt is now available. It
is a work item of the Link State Routing (LSR) WG of the IETF.
Title: Advertisement of Stub Link Attributes
Authors: Aijun Wang
Zhibo Hu
Gyan S. Mishra
Jinsong Sun
Name:
Do not support its adoption.
The draft just enumerate the requirements of MP-TLV support for relevant TLVs,
it is not the general solution to the issue.
There is no practical way in the draft to assure the current and future
implementation conforms to the newly defined explicit
