Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> writes:
[KT] The behaviors currently listed in the draft do not have an argument nor is the use of B and N required for them. We cannot preclude a future use-case or extension where such behaviors introduced are also applicable to ISIS. So IMHO ruling such aspects out might not be the right thing to do from a protocol extensibility perspective.
No opinion here on this sub-sub-TLV; however, it has been stated elsewhere that this document will be re-spun for each new behavior that is to be carried in IS-IS (not my personal preference, fwiw...). Thanks, Chris. [as WG member]
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
