Speaking as document shepherd and WG member:
Hi John, Qin, and Dhruv,
See a couple inlines.
From: Lsr on behalf of Dhruv Dhody
Date: Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 7:02 AM
To: Qin Wu
Cc: John Scudder ,
"draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-supp...@ietf.org"
, "lsr@ietf.org"
Subject: Re:
Hi Qin, John,
I have added my comments for two issues, please see inline (look for Dhruv:)
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 2:52 PM Qin Wu
wrote:
> Hi, John:
>
> Thanks for your valuable AD review. We have incorporate your comments into
> draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-10.
>
> Regarding
Inline: GV>
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of Tony Li
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 5:26 PM
To: Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
Cc: lsr
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-01.txt
Hi Gunter,
I am having troubles understanding the value of ‘The
Speaking as WG member:
Hi Gunder, Tony, Les,
I'm also not a fan of the Multi-Part TLV Capability flag. While the intent of
the draft is to encourage multi-part TLV advertisement and usage, the addition
of this flag and the requirement for advertisement will most likely have the
opposite
Having the ability to “see” what a given box supports is certainly useful – but
the question is whether sending such information in LSPs is the right way to do
it.
The information cannot be used be used by the routers themselves.
Better ways to make this available to operators include:
On box
Given the realities of deploying something like this I am all for
advertisement of what I'll call here the "multi-TLV-compliance" flag
(assuming we agree that capability implies a change in procedures on
reception from other nodes which this draft does not). Being able to see
that a customer
All,
I am actually finding this capability useful. If for nothing else then to
help the operator to see what is going on in the area. On any node simple
show command will clearly show who is willing and capable to receive
MP-TLVs and who is not.
Analogy to including hostnames Tony brought here
I agree that retaining the option and using it for debugging would be a good
thing. However, given that multi-part TLVs are already in use, the absence of
the advertisement doesn’t necessarily mean that the IS-IS router doesn’t
support multi-part TLVs. Rather, it presence would mean that beyond
