suehares
commented
3 months ago RTG-DIR Issue-20, Section 2.4.4.2.2, last paragraph
Why: Clarity and grammar
-04-txt: / The TLV 2 defined for the advertisement of Segment Type B in the earlier versions of this document has been deprecated to avoid backward compatibility issues./
new text:/ A Segment Type B subTLV with a SubTLV type value of 2 was defined for the advertisement of Segment Type B in earlier versions of this document but it was deprecated to avoid backward compatibility issues./
RTG-DIR Issue-20: Section 2.4.4.2.2 - Deprecating the value 2
The TLV 2 defined for the advertisement of Segment Type B in the earlier versions of this document has been deprecated to avoid backward compatibility issues.
Jeffrey: Why would deprecating them avoid backward compatibility issues?
Perhaps just remove "to avoid ..."?
Ketan: The WG was polled in this matter. While there were no implementations from "known" vendors represented at the IETF, we cannot rule out something being out there.
Jeffrey: I mean that “deprecating them” would not address the backward compatibility issue after all if there is implementation out there already based on the old version?
Ketan: The backward compatibility part was why we didn't change those TLV formats and used new code-points.
Jeffrey: Now I realize that you’re talking about the TLV 2 introduced in earlier versions of this document - they’re now deprecated/invalid. Should we talk about this at all? Shouldn’t it only talk about the final procedures/encodings when this becomes an RFC?
Ketan: This was discussed in the WG and the decision was to retain the use of the Binding SID TLV also for SRv6 for those early implementations. This is now clarified in the latest version based on Sue's suggestion - https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-03.html#section-2.4 has the following text: