Russ - Please state explicitly whether you want:
a)This draft to be considered by the WG in addition to draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding (i.e., we should work on both drafts in parallel) b)This draft to be considered as a replacement for draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding (i.e., we should abandon work on draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding and instead work on this draft) c)You want the ideas articulated in this draft to be incorporated into draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding (and please don't say "it doesn't matter" - because it certainly does matter :-) ) Thanx. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Lsr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 6:18 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-white-distoptflood- > 00.txt > > > > The WG just went through a lengthy consideration of multiple flooding > > optimization drafts and selected https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft- > ietf- > > lsr-dynamic-flooding/ as the vehicle for the WG to use to move forward in > > this area. > > Yep. > > > It would be good if, in the context of the above, you articulated why it > makes > > sense for the WG to do yet another round of such discussion. > > == > In this idea, the flooding topology is computed within an IGP area > with the dense topology either centrally on an elected node, termed > the Area Leader, or in a distributed manner on all nodes that are > supporting Dynamic Flooding. > == > > Because this is only one way to solve the problem... The process outlined in > the draft I just published is a different and simpler way that applies to a > wider > range of topologies than the dynamic flooding draft does, afaict. > > 😊 /r > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
