On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Christopher Morrow <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:59 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:44 AM, Peter Schoenmaker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> At IETF in vancouver we had a presentation from Russ White for a new working >>> group item draft-white-grow-overlapping-routes-00. I would like to gauge >>> the working group interest in adopting this draft as a working group item. >> >> What am I missing? The last few times this was discussed here or on > > you're probably not missing anything in particular, except that you > didn't state whether or not the doc (or the ideas that the doc > contains/explains) should show up as a working-group work item.
Hi Christopher, Well, unless one of the authors wants to step up and say, "Bill, we anticipated the problem you posed and this is how we cleverly got around everything like it," I'd have to say thumbs down on adopting it for discussion and work. Recommend the authors pore through the RRG archives for a history lesson in all the myriad approaches to RIB aggregation that are known to not work. If aggregating overlaps isn't the most popular non-working approach it's surely the second most popular. That, by the way, would make a great draft: a canonical list of the approaches considered for RIB aggregation and the key faults identified with each. So that the next guy doesn't have to pore through the RRG archives and, when somebody does find a novel idea, he can explicitly point out that, "This is why it doesn't suffer the fault identified in RFC X section 8." Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
