On April 10, 2019 at 5:46:56 PM, Vigoureux, Martin (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) ([email protected]) wrote:
Martin: Hi! It looks to me that you don’t disagree with what is written in the draft but rather with the fact that the draft may suggest that IGPs should do things which are in fact not specified in the IGPs drafts. I think this point covers 1.1 to 1.4 Assuming that I’m correct, I believe that in order to clear the misunderstanding authors could simply remove the sentence: “IGPs with SR extensions...are examples of MCCs.”. …and probably clean up some other text, for example, §2.10.1 references I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions specifically. Bottom line, I think you’re right. On 1.5. I don’t think there is a conflict. It does not contradict 8402. It is not saying “An IGP Node-SID SHOULD NOT be associated with a prefix …” The way I see it is that this is a belt and suspenders approach. The base req says MUST NOT and this req says “check if this req is respected”. I read this document as saying “check, but you may have reasons not to”… IMHO, there’s no reason to specify the behavior here again, if it’s already specified in rfc8402. Of course this is only my view. I expect authors to have their own. I’m sure they will. ;-) Thanks! Alvaro.
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
