From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
Sent: 24 June 2021 13:57
Hi Tom,
That's an interesting approach, indeed. However, one may object this is
speculating about future use. No?
It is speculating about whether or not this data will ever be needed to be
referred to in a Normative manner. I keep
Hi Tom,
That's an interesting approach, indeed. However, one may object this is
speculating about future use. No?
Please note that IPFIX types (in general, not only this I-D) can be used in
YANG modules without having to cite an RFC. The authoritative reference would
be the IANA registry
From: OPSAWG on behalf of Tianran Zhou
Sent: 24 June 2021 07:34
To: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com;
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-t...@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org
Hi Med,
Your capture is correct.
Let’s go through the more complete definition of “informational”, but ignore
the
Hi Med,
Thanks for the promptly feedback. I updated to -04 version according to your
input.
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-04
All lines now within 72 characters. Added the "." as described and reverted
back to the previous paragraph and included
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group
WG of the IETF.
Title : Export of MPLS Segment Routing Label Type Information
in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Re-,
The main document provides useful details about the use cases of the new types.
These use cases are informative.
The part that I see may have interoperability implications is the clarification
that the new codes should not be mixed with the existing BGP one. If we want to
maintain the
Hi Med,
Your capture is correct.
Let's go through the more complete definition of "informational", but ignore
the "consensus" part.
"An "Informational" specification is published for the general
information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
Internet community consensus or
