Re: [Lsr] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: (with COMMENT)

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Thanks!
Alissa

> On May 21, 2020, at 3:51 AM, Peter Psenak <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Alissa,
> 
> On 20/05/2020 21:57, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker wrote:
>> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: 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-ospf-mpls-elc/
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> I wasn't clear on where the  thread ended up from the Gen-ART review, but I'm
>> nevertheless suggesting some text below to resolve the main sticking point.
>> OLD
>> If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD advertise the
>> ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF.
>> NEW
>> If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD advertise the
>> ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF. The absence of these
>> advertisements implies that advertisement of the ELC is not supported.
> 
> I added the suggested text, plus I added "OSPF" at the end. So the text is:
> 
> "If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD advertise the ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF. The absence of these advertisements implies that advertisement of the ELC is not supported in OSPF."
> 
> I added similar text to ISIS ELC draft.
> 
> thanks,
> Peter
> 
>> Not sure if that matches the intent though.