Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-07

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Daniele,

Thanks for addressing everything. There's only one issue left in section 4.1.1 on Priority, below. I've trimmed out all the rest.

On 7 Feb 2017, at 3:36, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:

I get that part ("At least one priority level MUST be advertised"). It's the end I don't understand: "that, unless overridden by local policy, SHALL be at priority level 0." What does that mean?

[DC] It means that if only one priority is supported it has to be priority 0.

So, let me see if I have this right: It's OK to have 01100000 but not 01000000 or 00100000? If so, why is that?

For any particular administrative purpose it could be possible to set it to a different value, but that shouldn’t be done.

Well, it doesn't say that shouldn't be done, but it probably doesn't need to say anything about local configurations.

pr
--
Pete Resnick http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]