Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Minutes from IETF 95

[Paul Jakma <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:

> Are you familiar with the requirements language? While the use of 
> “should not” is unfortunate, it is not normative. To be normative it 
> would need to be “SHOULD NOT”.

Capitals are not required. If one is used to RFC2328, one would not 
expect normative language to be shouty.

> Furthermore, RFC 6987 is informational as opposed to standards track.
> Finally, the document goes on to precisely state the behavior (refer 
> to the last paragraph of section 4).

> I believe the above is clear.

Sure, 4 reads the other way but "deployment considerations" . I'm not 
saying how it must be read, just saying it is possible to read the 
stronger language of 3 another way.

I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to explain why we are here.

>> For the RFC6987 desired behaviour, any high metric other than 0xffff
>> will universally work.
>
> You have misinterpreted it.

I may have misinterpreted RFC6987, sure.

However, it is a fact that the behaviour desired by RFC6987 can be 
universally achieved with metrics of 0xfffe or lower. That was true 
before any misinterpretation, and is still true now.

0xffff today will not universally be recognised as meaning "you can 
still calculate transit paths out of a router using that link". 0xfffe 
or below will.

That is the reality today.

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	[e-mail]	@pjakma	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
Even a blind pig stumbles upon a few acorns.