On August 13, 2019 at 11:46:10 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) (
ginsb...@cisco.com) wrote:
Hi!
245Note: Implementations based on earlier drafts of RFC 5306
246may not include this field in the TLV when the RA bit is set..
247In this case, a router that
Alvaro -
From: Alvaro Retana
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 7:56 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ;
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5306...@ietf.org
Cc: Uma Chunduri ; lsr@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5306bis-02
On August 10, 2019 at 6:44:49 PM, Les
On August 10, 2019 at 6:44:49 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) (
ginsb...@cisco.com) wrote:
Les:
Hi!
I have a couple of comments below related to backwards compatibility: I
think there is a way to not change the behavior of current implementations
*and* not throw out old implementations. See below.
after I get back from a short vacation.
A few responses to your “introduction” inline.
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2019 8:56 AM
To: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5306...@ietf.org
Cc: lsr-cha...@ietf.org; Uma Chunduri ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf
Hi Alavaro,
From: Lsr on behalf of Alvaro Retana
Date: Friday, August 2, 2019 at 11:57 AM
To: "draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5306...@ietf.org"
Cc: "lsr-cha...@ietf.org" , Uma Chunduri
, "lsr@ietf.org"
Subject: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5306bis-02
Dear authors:
I just finished reading this document. Thank you for your work on it.
Why was it decided to create a bis document and not just an Update to
rfc5306? Either way works for me, I'm just curious.
Knowing that the change in this document, with respect to rfc5306, is new
