https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03 has been
published. This addresses the inconsistency with RFC7471.
Les
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 2:46 PM
To: Alvaro Retana ; John Scudder ;
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810...@ietf.org
Cc: Hares
On November 28, 2018 at 5:46:08 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) (
ginsb...@cisco.com) wrote:
Les:
Hi!
As lead author on rfc7810bis I am happy to modify the language to be
consistent with RFC7471. That seems like the far easier pathway so long as
we have your assurance (which it seems we do) that
Alvaro –
As lead author on rfc7810bis I am happy to modify the language to be consistent
with RFC7471. That seems like the far easier pathway so long as we have your
assurance (which it seems we do) that this will not unduly delay progress of
rfc7810bis.
I do find that the fact that you
I am explicitly copying the authors of rfc7810bis to get them involved in
this discussion. Also cc’d lsr-chairs.
Even if the two versions are algebraically identical, and because the
definitions in draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp depend on *both* documents, I would
prefer it if the text was the same to
Ah, I was looking at an old version of 7810bis, sorry about that.
ISTM that:
- if the two versions are actually algebraically identical (as I speculated but
do not insist) then it would be nicer to adopt the "available bandwidth is
defined to be the sum of the component link available
John:
Hi!
I should have pointed to the current version of rfc7810bis [1], which now
reads:
Available Bandwidth: This field carries the available bandwidth on a
link, forwarding adjacency, or bundled link in IEEE floating-point
format with units of bytes per second. For a link or
5486 [was: Re: AD Review of
draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-14]
+lsr to the cc
Hi Alvaro,
On Nov 28, 2018, at 4:01 PM, Alvaro Retana
mailto:aretana.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
[major] AFAICT, Available Bandwidth is the only definition that is different
between rfc7810/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7
