Tony, > Ice, as you well know we ended up with a one value BAR field without a > registry (you being a strong proponent of such solution if I recall > correctly) which is the current draft state in IETF LC Greg initiated.
Indeed, along with other steak holders -T. > Yes, ideas were extended based on original private drafts which have not been > initiated from my side BTW. Some draft of a draft followed from other parties > (which I was part of) trying to reconcile the different asks into some kind > of a workable state. Obviously I have many such discussions juggling at any > given point in time around technologies I push forward and I try to keep a > lot of people invested while assuring that we don't end up with intractable > balls of yarn. In this case I did not see in a timely manner any consensus > that seemed mature enough to me to shake the IETF LC despite having > repeatedly notifying the parties that time is not infinite here and workable > consensus for many involved interests is not equivalent to having one's > desires being part of imperative substratum of the technology. And in this > case all was aggravated somewhat by the fact that we were talking > introduction of unspecified fields reflecting working versions of private > drafts on top of an already barely specified field we have. > > In short: since you state you're fine with the draft as it is (I omit the > nits/defect I found with Les I was always fine with the version that Greg LC'd as you rightfully state above. > which I assume will cause no further discussions) neither do I see any need > to shake the draft further. Good to hear! > Ongoing developments of the technology will be taken into future drafts > especially since we are steering towards a generous standards charter to > develop BIER. Thx, Ice. _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
