Sounds like a good idea, I agree with this. Best regards, Mach -----Original Message----- From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 12:11 AM To: 'Acee Lindem (acee)'; 'Hannes Gredler'; 'Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)'; 'John E Drake'; 'Alexander Vainshtein'; 'Greg Mirsky' Cc: mpls@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; isis-chairs@xxxxxxxx; gen-art@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@xxxxxxxx; 'Abhay Roy (akr)'; 'Robert Sparks' Subject: Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12 I agree with Hannes on this. However, if the document was to highlight strongly that the data is "a non-routing related capability" (if that's what we believe!) and stress that the information "that does not change frequently" (perhaps with some explanation of "frequently") I believe that might help everyone. Adrian > >we have taken turns long-time ago to advertise non-routing related > >information which is only relevant to controllers (l2bundles comes > >into mind ;-)). > > > >while it would have been nice to get at least notice that an IS-IS > >extension is being worked on (i mean prior to IANA asking for expert > >review :-/ ) i see no reason why we should hold this back. - we can > >argue perhaps whether it should be part of GENAPP or ROUTERCAP TLVs, > >but i cannot see the sky falling to advertise a non-routing related > >capability, that does not change frequently. > > I agree but was just trying to get a better idea of precisely how the > information will be used and whether interface is the right granularity. _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls