Hannes, it's getting difficult to follow your reasoning because you switch from protocol details concerns (which have been addressed) to ietf procedures...
Can you clarify in a new thread what is your problem in making the Binding TLV _not_ MT aware in ISIS ? Also, would you also suggest to make it _not_ MT aware in OSPF ? In such case we have to change the OSPF spec. s. On May 21, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Hannes Gredler <[email protected]> wrote: > hi stefano, > > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:14:20AM +0000, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote: > [ ... ] > | > | SP> why not creating a new thread explaining the issue and including > isis and spring wg ? > | > > | > HG> thats a good suggestion - please do it ! - > | > HG> we need to be clear on the protocol requirements *before* adding > | > HG> protocol extensions. > | > | SP> well, we agreed already at multiple occasions (last one was during the > meeting in Dallas > | SP> where you and me agreed to add MT support to the Binding TLV) so we're > inline with the process, right ? > > again this is meant as a friendly reminder to document (e.g. in some of the > SPRING documents > where you have the pen) how you want to intend to use the MT extensions for > the binding TLV. > > its not yet clear to me and i'd like to get an answer on this before > progressing the > protocol extensions in the ISIS and OSPF working groups. > > /hannes _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
