Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023)

Hi Les Question in-line about the configuration controls being a recommended solution or must as Bruno pointed out. Responses in-line Gyan> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com * *M 301 502-1347* On Tue, Nov 21, 2023

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023)

Hi Acee *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com * *M 301 502-1347* On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 1:19 PM Acee Lindem wrote: > Speaking as WG member: > > I agree with Tony, the WG intent should be to make the current defacto >

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023)

Hi Tony Some comments in-line *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com * *M 301 502-1347* On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 11:46 AM Tony Li wrote: > > Hi Bruno, > > Thank you for your comments. > > > As a constructive proposal,

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023)

Dear WG I agree with Bruno about the concerns with brownfield multi vendor forwarding loops regarding deployment of MP TLV extension. +1 one comments by Bruno Comments in-line *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com * *M

Re: [Lsr] Bug in RFC 8667 definition of SID/Index/Label

Hi Les, Thanks for the speedy reply, and I take your point. I do still think an erratum is called for, but I think it's editorial or "hold for document update", not technical. Now that you've applied the clue bat I think I can compose one. I'll do so by and by and you can see what you think.

Re: [Lsr] Bug in RFC 8667 definition of SID/Index/Label

John - The meaningful bits of the SID and the size (number of octets) depend upon the flags. As Section 2.1.1.1 states (emphasis added): The following settings for V-Flag and L-Flag are valid: The V-Flag and L-Flag are set to 0: The SID/Index/Label field is a 4-octet index defining

[Lsr] Bug in RFC 8667 definition of SID/Index/Label

Hi Authors and Contributors who "should be considered as coauthors”, Your RFC defines the SID/Index/Label field of the Prefix Segment Identifier (Prefix-SID) Sub-TLV, in Section 2.1, as: SID/Index/Label as defined in Section 2.1.1.1. But when I look at Section 2.1.1.1 I see that it