Subject: [L3sm] [l3sm] #11 (draft-ltsd-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model): MUST for site diversity?

From: "l3sm issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 17:31:03 -0000

#11: MUST for site diversity?

 Section 6 states:

     As described in Section 5.2.1, the management system MAY
     use the location information and MUST use the site-diversity
     constraint to find the appropriate PE.

 Actually, perhaps this MUST for site-diversity could be turned into a
 SHOULD, because Section 5.2.1.3. states on site-diversity:

     How these diversity constraints are applied is out of scope of the
 document.

 I am not convinced that a MUST on an unspecified mechanism really makes
 sense, and since this also does not affect the YANG model, the solution to
 this aspect could be simple...

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:  michael.scharf@alcatel-  |      Owner:  draft-ltsd-l3sm-l3vpn-
  lucent.com                         |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                   |     Status:  new
 Priority:  trivial                  |  Milestone:
Component:  draft-ltsd-l3sm-l3vpn-   |    Version:
  service-model                      |   Keywords:
 Severity:  -                        |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/l3sm/trac/ticket/11>
l3sm <http://tools.ietf.org/l3sm/>

---

From: "l3sm issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 11:18:27 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Agree that we can move it to a SHOULD.

  service-model                      |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                           |

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/l3sm/trac/ticket/11#comment:1>
l3sm <http://tools.ietf.org/l3sm/>