Re: WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols

Hi,

I support the adoption of draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols as a
foundation for a WG item. A per-link "Capability sub-TLV" (the term
"protocol" might be too specific here) really adds a missing piece after
RFC 5073.

Once WG document, we may discuss an additional use case suggested by
that RFC: on top of RSVP-TE support, distinguish between 3209-only and
3473-capable. Indeed, there are parameters like SRLGs that were defined
as part of GMPLS extensions: an implementation (wildly) guessing RFC
3473 support from that would not be fully wrong. Similarly, an
implementation may perfectly support 3473 even if it has not explicitly
advertise a PSC switching capability on a given link. Let us make these
explicit!

My 2 cents,

Julien


Oct. 07, 2017 - Christian Hopps:
> Hi Folks,
>
> The authors have requested the IS-IS WG adopt
>
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols/
>
> as a working group document. Please indicate your support or no-support
> for taking on this work.
>
> Authors: Please indicate your knowledge of any IPR related to this work
> to the list as well.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris & Hannes.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg