Re: [Lsr] [spring] clarification of locator block and locator node in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming and draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions
On 12/03/2020 12:33, Christian Hopps wrote: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) writes: [KT] The behaviors currently listed in the draft do not have an argument nor is the use of B and N required for them. We cannot preclude a future use-case or extension where such behaviors introduced are also applicable to ISIS. So IMHO ruling such aspects out might not be the right thing to do from a protocol extensibility perspective. No opinion here on this sub-sub-TLV; however, it has been stated elsewhere that this document will be re-spun for each new behavior that is to be carried in IS-IS (not my personal preference, fwiw...). "it has been stated elsewhere that this document will be re-spun for each new behavior" I don't believe above was the outcome. Instead, a new document will be needed for any new behavior. thanks, Peter Thanks, Chris. [as WG member] ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] [spring] clarification of locator block and locator node in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming and draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions
Hi Chris, I've been following that thread 😊 IMHO it would depend on the nature of extension and seems not something that I would speculate about. Thanks, Ketan -Original Message- From: Lsr On Behalf Of Christian Hopps Sent: 12 March 2020 17:04 To: spr...@ietf.org Cc: Chris Bowers ; lsr@ietf.org; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) ; Bruno Decraene Subject: Re: [Lsr] [spring] clarification of locator block and locator node in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming and draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) writes: > [KT] The behaviors currently listed in the draft do not have an argument nor > is the use of B and N required for them. We cannot preclude a future use-case > or extension where such behaviors introduced are also applicable to ISIS. So > IMHO ruling such aspects out might not be the right thing to do from a > protocol extensibility perspective. No opinion here on this sub-sub-TLV; however, it has been stated elsewhere that this document will be re-spun for each new behavior that is to be carried in IS-IS (not my personal preference, fwiw...). Thanks, Chris. [as WG member] ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] [spring] clarification of locator block and locator node in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming and draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions
Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) writes: [KT] The behaviors currently listed in the draft do not have an argument nor is the use of B and N required for them. We cannot preclude a future use-case or extension where such behaviors introduced are also applicable to ISIS. So IMHO ruling such aspects out might not be the right thing to do from a protocol extensibility perspective. No opinion here on this sub-sub-TLV; however, it has been stated elsewhere that this document will be re-spun for each new behavior that is to be carried in IS-IS (not my personal preference, fwiw...). Thanks, Chris. [as WG member] signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
