I would agree with the below observation of using detailed solution to the requirement.
Rgs, R. On Mar 27, 2014 5:50 PM, "Lizhenbin" <lizhen...@huawei.com> wrote: > Alvaro, > > > > Section 2 of draft-francois-spring-resiliency-use-case presents as follows: > > > > " > From an SR viewpoint, we would like to highlight the following > requirement: the adjacency segments used to support the tunnels T1 > and T2 MUST NOT benefit from local protection. This is achieved by > resetting the B-flag in the related AdjSID's as per the IGP > extensions defined in [3]. > " > > > > It is too detailed to define like "This is achieved by resetting the > B-flag in the related AdjSID's as per the IGP extensions defined in [3]". > The use case should be defined well instead of protocol procedures. > > > > > > Regards, > > Zhenbin(Robin) > > > > > > > > > > Hi! > > > > This message officially starts the call for adoption for > > draft-francois-spring-resiliency-use-case. > > > > Please indicate your position about adopting this use cases draft > > by end-of-day on March 27, 2014. > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-francois-spring-resiliency-use-case > > > > Thanks! > > > > Alvaro. > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
