Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-05: (with COMMENT)
Alvaro Retana <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.isis |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-05: 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-isis-l2bundles/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The main motivation (from the Introduction) for this extension seems to be to provide information to "entities external to IS-IS such as Path Computation Elements". I would like to see some discussion related to the "interface" with these external entities. [Note: I am not asking for a comparison with other potential solutions like BGP-LS.] I would also like to see the conversation with the OPS DIR reviewer reflected in the document. I also support the DISCUSS points about the Security Considerations. About other potential or protocol agnostic solutions... I read the related discussion [1] that took place before the WG adoption of the document, and trust that the subsequent adoption and WGLC reflect the consensus of the WG. As has been put in evidence by the development of multiple routing protocols and other solutions, one size doesn't always fit all. [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/cK6dBtjvFZgNnZsQGZBgrpGG8jc/?qid=0a77495659ebc27956fe54d200bf3f33