Re: [Teas] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06: (with COMMENT)

["Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <[e-mail]>]

Stephen,

> "It is recommended that domain/layer boundary policies take the
> implications of releasing SRLG information into consideration and behave
> accordingly during LSP signaling." Eh, that's a bit opaque for me at
> least.  Can you say a bit more about what those implications might be and
> how one might take them into account, and why that doesn't need to be
> mentioned in the document?  I'm asking since there is a bit of a breach of
> the blood-brain barrier going on here (as is ack'd in the draft) and while
> it's hard to envisage that much going wrong if providers expose this
> information, I guess there might easily be something too subtle for this
> particular reader:-)

There's no intent here to tell anyone how they ought to run their network. What I was really trying to do when I wrote this was to say, "You should probably think about this before you do it". This is also talked about a bit at the end of section 1. Would it help to re-iterate what's there in this section?

Cheers

Matt