Hi Suresh, We didn't consider 8026-like prioritization at the CE because that feature is not specific to A+P but applies to a bunch of IPv4 service continuity mechanisms including DS-Lite and 464xlat. That feature has to be defined, if needed, in a separate module.
Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Softwires [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Suresh > Krishnan > Envoyé : jeudi 10 janvier 2019 15:05 > À : The IESG > Cc : [email protected]; [email protected]; draft-ietf-softwire- > [email protected] > Objet : [Softwires] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-softwire- > yang-14: (with COMMENT) > > Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-softwire-yang-14: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-yang/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I would have thought putting in a prioritization mechanism (like RFC8026 > does) > for ordering the different mechanisms would have been useful in this YANG > module in order to configure the CE. Was this something that was considered? > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
