Subject: [Lsr] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 May 2020 22:52:00 -0700

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As with the IS-IS document, I assume the presence of six authors, above our
usual limit of five, was approved by your AD.

I agree with Barry's point that this document and the IS-IS document could
easily have been combined.  Even some of the syntactical things he corrected
are present in both documents.

When would you ever not do what the two SHOULDs in Section 3 say?

---

From: Peter Psenak <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 14:39:00 +0200

Hi Murray,

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc/

advertising ELC property with prefix advertisement is optional. We can 
not mandate it. It would make all routers not advertising this data 
violating this spec.

thanks,
Peter