Closed italobusi closed 1 year ago
2022-10-07 TE Call
Agreed for option b).
Note – The te-types needs to be updated accordingly
Addressed in 9717721
Add default for restoration-type to 'te-types:lsp-restoration-restore-none'
- @italobusi : add a new identity to te-types:lsp-restoration-type” (e.g., te-types:lsp-restoration-restore-none) to disable restoration
Done in PR #205
@tsaad-dev :
Add default for restoration-type to 'te-types:lsp-restoration-restore-none'
Addressed in 902c1ad
Within the protection container it looks like there is some duplication between the enable and the protection-type: is it possible to have enable=true and protection-type="te-types:lsp-protection-unprotected"?
If not, the protection can be enabled by setting the protection-type<>"te-types:lsp-protection-unprotected" and the enable leaf could be removed from the model.
Alternatively, to keep consistency between the protection and restoration configuration, it is also possible to either:
a) Keep the enable leaf; change/remove the default value for the protection-type leaf and deprecate the te-types:lsp-protection-unprotected (already defined in RFC8776); or
b) Remove the enable leaf also from the restoration container and add a new “te-types:lsp-restoration-type” (e.g., te-types:lsp-restoration-restore-none) to disable restoration
See comment 9) in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/26vHESr_cYIsUes6Fuvw3YAOtjk/