search

ietf-wg-idr / draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct

1 stars 2 forks source link

Section 7.10 #53

Closed suehares closed 10 months ago

suehares commented 11 months ago

21) Major Comment Section 7.10.

It should be noted that in such cases "Transport Class ID/Color" can exist in multiple places on the same route, and a precedence order needs to be established to determine which Transport Class the route's next hop should resolve over. This document suggests the following order of precedence, more specific scoping of Color preferred to less specific scoping: Transport Class ID SubTLV, in MultiNexthop Attribute. Color SubTLV, in Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute. Transport Target Extended community, on BGP CT route. Color Extended community, on BGP service route. #Keyur: This draft has MNH in informative section. :)
suehares commented 11 months ago

KV> It is mentioned to provide comprehensive and unambiguous rules wrt deciding ‘effective color’. I think this kind of reference is OK for informative?

Sue: It should be informative.
In an experimental draft, it is permissible to use WG drafts as normative. In a standards draft, there are questions about “how soon” WG drafts turn to full standard.

There seems to be interest in MNH draft as WG draft.

kalirajv commented 10 months ago

based on discussion on the call with keyur and sue, removed the reference to MNH draft here.