Re: OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE

Acee,

my question is whether we need the whole section 6 and the SID/Label 
Binding Sub-TLV that it specifies. In OSPF Binding SID is not used for 
SRMS advertisement like in ISIS.

thanks,
Peter



On 09/06/17 16:45 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> Corrected IS-IS WG alias – Please reply to this one.
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> From: Acee Lindem <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Date: Friday, June 9, 2017 at 10:42 AM
> To: OSPF WG List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>,
> "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>"
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Cc: "[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>"
> <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Subject: OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also
> effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS)
>
>     Hi OSPF, ISIS, and SPRING WGs,
>
>     As part of the Alia’s AD review, she uncovered the fact that the ERO
>     extensions in 6.1 and 6.2 are specified as far as encoding but are
>     not specified as far as usage in any IGP or SPRING document. As
>     document shepherd,  my proposal is that they simply be removed since
>     they were incorporated as part of a draft merge and it appears that
>     no one has implemented them (other than parsing). We could also
>     deprecate types (4-8) in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA Sub-TLV
>     registry to delay usage of these code points for some time (or
>     indefinitely ;^).
>
>     Thanks,
>     Acee
>

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg