Re: [Isis-wg] Proposed isis-wg documents - draft-ginsberg-isis-route-preference-00

We know  multiple  places  in 5302 and 5305 it's clearly said "Down" bit MUST NOT be set in L2. 
But I see the corner case in Section 4.1  where "Down" bit was allowed in the same level.

Now if that is the premise of this work - let's focus bit more on the problem see as described in Appendix A;

" o  R2 has two possible paths to reach 10/8, Level 2 route with metric
      2002, up/down bit is 0 (from R0) and Level 2 route with metric
      101, up/down bit is 1 (from R3).  R2 selects R1 as nexthop to 10/8
      because it prefers the route which does NOT have up/down bit set."

Why? 
Please clarify, which document said exactly prefer a route "which does NOT have up/down bit set". 

I could not see it neither in 5302 nor in 5305. To me this is R2 implementation issue (NOT a protocol issue) in dealing with 135s.

--
Uma C.
PS: Thanks both Hannes and Chris to check back if my question (asked partially at Toronto) has been addressed.

-----Original Message-----
From: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 4:48 AM
To: isis-wg@ietf.org list
Cc: Hannes Gredler; Christian Hopps
Subject: [Isis-wg] Proposed isis-wg documents.

Hi Folks,

During the last meeting in Toronto there was good support for making the below drafts WG documents. Unless objections are posted to the list by Friday we will move forward with doing this.

Proposed WG Documents:

	draft-ginsberg-isis-sbfd-discriminator-00
	draft-ginsberg-isis-route-preference-00
	draft-litkowski-isis-yang-isis-cfg-01

Thanks,
Chris & Hannes.
_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
Isis-wg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg