Les,
Thanks for the reply.
Please see inline [Bruno2]
Orange Restricted
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 5:32 PM
To: DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET ; Christian Hopps
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv and "backwards compatibility&qu
Bruno –
Thanx for the thoughtful comments.
Please see responses inline.
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 6:40 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Christian Hopps
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv and "backwards compatibility"
: [Lsr] draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv and "backwards compatibility"
Chris -
Thanx for the reply - and glad to see we seem to be headed in the same
direction.
Just wanted to clarify that the MP draft does NOT advocate partial deployment.
[Bruno] Speaking of clarity, I'd rephrase thi
Hopps
> Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 6:10 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: Christian Hopps ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv and "backwards compatibility"
>
>
> My point is that people are not using the same definition of b
My point is that people are not using the same definition of backward compatibility. This
is why this argument over it is going in circles. I'm suggesting that when you consider
each persons definition of backward compatibility, then neither side is wrong. So saying
things like "No. You are
Chris (and everyone) -
A more complete response to your comments regarding "backwards compatibility",
routing loops, etc.
It is absolutely true that until all nodes in the network support advertisement
(meaning at least receive processing) of more than 255 bytes for a given
object, that
