Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71A0E12D791 for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 20:56:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.53 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qG5WtaqvkD5b for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 20:55:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FB1A12D78E for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 20:55:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4623; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1460087758; x=1461297358; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=vEPX0hXIb2uofAmc4g7biqejUwW0edpAFi4+D+zrEXg=; b=VtS0gycYTOpoQvcXQ2pNMpLC82d7/fsp4vVJR+WZ/PJJlWxxicjWmOr2 JPEPuyF3eCAaakITCCgepK8YFJWspwks9UHFHP8/ADq9nGIIexYdNcWyP 2xFsGIirZR6vAX3G5nOyA802kEchL8tgeUM568P/W3FNCm6Mjp/smtfu3 Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D7AQAuKwdX/40NJK1dgmtMU30GukABD?= =?us-ascii?q?YFzhg0CgT84FAEBAQEBAQFlJ4RBAQEBBC1cAgEIEQQBASgHMhQJCAEBBAESCIg?= =?us-ascii?q?fwisBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEVhiGES4R1hSAFmAQBjgSPFI8kAR4BA?= =?us-ascii?q?UKDZ2yIO34BAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,449,1454976000"; d="scan'208,217";a="259008228" Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 08 Apr 2016 03:55:57 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (xch-rcd-002.cisco.com [173.37.102.12]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u383tvFG008560 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 8 Apr 2016 03:55:57 GMT Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (173.37.102.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 22:55:56 -0500 Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 22:55:56 -0500 From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" To: "Paul Mattes (AZURE)" , "ospf@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-01 for IS-IS? Thread-Index: AdGRCWFwQxA5nUINRAeIjM4TdDDRaAAQOPfg Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 03:55:56 +0000 Message-ID: <5c1a7d162ef547b584d446cab8baa0bc@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.24.126.203] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5c1a7d162ef547b584d446cab8baa0bcXCHALN001ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [OSPF] draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-01 for IS-IS? X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 03:56:00 -0000 --_000_5c1a7d162ef547b584d446cab8baa0bcXCHALN001ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable No - there isn't an IS-IS equivalent - though I agree that conceptually the= same arguments (for and against) apply to both protocols. For my part I am happy to let the discussion continue to a conclusion in OS= PF WG before deciding what should be done in IS-IS. Les From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Mattes (AZURE) Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 1:10 PM To: ospf@ietf.org Subject: [OSPF] draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-01 for IS-IS? Is there an IS-IS equivalent of draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-01? pdm --_000_5c1a7d162ef547b584d446cab8baa0bcXCHALN001ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

No – there isn&#= 8217;t an IS-IS equivalent – though I agree that conceptually the sam= e arguments (for and against) apply to both protocols.

 

For my part I am happy= to let the discussion continue to a conclusion in OSPF WG before deciding = what should be done in IS-IS.

 

   Les<= /o:p>

 

 

From: OSPF [ma= ilto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Mattes (AZURE)
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 1:10 PM
To: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: [OSPF] draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-01 for IS-IS?<= o:p>

 

Is there an IS-IS equivalent of draft-ppsenak-ospf-t= e-link-attr-reuse-01?

 

       pdm

 

--_000_5c1a7d162ef547b584d446cab8baa0bcXCHALN001ciscocom_--