> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Kireeti Kompella > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 5:16 PM > To: Pyda Srisuresh > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Last Call: Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 2 > to Proposed Standard > > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Pyda Srisuresh wrote: > > > > Let me be more precise: draft-katz-yeung says how TE in a single OSPF > > > area can be accomplished. It doesn't aim to address the multi-area > > > case; *nor does it say that it cannot do so*; *nor should it do so*. > > > There is work going on to address multi-area TE *that builds on this > > > draft*. In spite of your "recommendations", this multi-area work > > > building on draft-katz-yeung has a lot of traction. I therefore have > > > no intentions of putting in incorrect or incomplete limitations. > > > > > > ... > > > > Kireeti - You apparantly have an attitude and it shows. Outside > > of your attitude, you have not said anything in your defence. > > You clearly have an agenda. Those who have a background in this > matter know this. Those who don't don't know how lucky they are. >
There is no secret or hidden agenda here. Stop making insinuations. It is no secret that I have a competing draft, titled, "OSPF-TE: An experimental extension to OSPF for Traffic Engineering" (filed as draft-srisuesh-ospf-te-04.txt). I sent messages in the past to the OSPF WG, comparing my draft to the katz-yeung draft. This is what Rohit Dube was alluding to in his last e-mail. Make no mistake. The comments I sent to the IETF were solely in response to the IETF last call on the katz-yeung draft; not in comparison with any specific draft. I mentioned this to Rohit in my last e-mail to him. It is part of the IETF process to let the wider community know of the concerns with the draft. I am doing my share. I backed all my comments with explanations. > Let me repeat, using short words with few syllables: > > 1) draft-katz-yeung says how to do TE in a single OSPF area. > 2) draft-katz-yeung does not address the multi-area case. > 3) Given (2), it does not make sense to put in lim it ations that > say it won't work in the multi-area case when at worst we don't > know, and at best it may in fact work like a charm. > No dispute here. My comment in this context was to fix the title. My remaining comments are to do with fixing confusing terminology and adding limitations of the model vis-a-vis mixed networks. > > All my comments including those on limitations remain unanswered. > > You confuse "answered, but not to your satisfaction" with "unanswered". > > ... > Your answers were either incomplete or riddled with attitude so as to sidestep the original comment. <... snip> regards, suresh
