Thanks to the authors for cleaning this up a lot since last time.
I don't object to adoption. Would be nice to have evidence of someone
needing a bit now, but by the time this becomes an RFC it is reasonably
possible.
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: Pce On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent:
Hi Aijun,
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 1:33 PM Aijun Wang
wrote:
> Hi, Dhruv:
> Yes, support its adoption.
> I think the extension can give more spaces to describe the future state of
> LSP.
> One question, is it necessary to be variable length? How to keep align
> when the bit position is fixed but
Hi Tom,
Thank you for your valuable feedback.
Some of the issues you point out are easy to address and we've already
requested the authors to revise the I-D accordingly. To fully resolve
your concern, could you please point any other specific parts where you
feel you have to "interpret the words
Hi, Dhruv:
Yes, support its adoption.
I think the extension can give more spaces to describe the future state of LSP.
One question, is it necessary to be variable length? How to keep align when the
bit position is fixed but the length is variable?
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
> On Feb 16, 2021, at
