Addressing RFC8776-bis WG LC comments#291
Conversation
…IANA-maintained model: fix tsaad-dev#281
|
@tsaad-dev : do we need the state container to contain only the signaled-bandwidth leaf? What about the following change: OLD NEW |
| leaf specification-type { | ||
| type te-bandwidth-requested-type; | ||
| description | ||
| "The method used for setting the bandwidth, either |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
NEW:
The bandwidth specification type, either explicit or automatically computed
| Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering, | ||
| Section 4.3.1"; | ||
| } | ||
| container state { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do we still use "state" container? Also, shouldn't this be config False?
| units "bits/second"; | ||
| description | ||
| "Available bandwith value."; | ||
| "Bandwidth value for Packet links."; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
s/Packet links/packet TE links/
tsaad-dev
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
please address couple of small nits
|
2024-09-27 TE Call Agreed to remove the state container and make the signaled-bandwidth config false (see also #291 (comment))
|
Addressing additional WG LC comments: