From: Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 10:49 AM To: Tony Li <[email protected]> Cc: Acee Lindem <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Working Group Adoption Call for "Hierarchical IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-hierarchical-isis-01
> What would you suggest? How about: draft-ietf-lsr-n-level-isis-00 ? I don’t like this – if we are going to split hairs on terminology, I’d suggest “IS-IS Level 3-8 Hierarchy”. Thanks, Acee r. On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 4:42 PM <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Robert, Thank you for your support. What would you suggest? Tony On Aug 13, 2019, at 6:40 AM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Support. However assuming the draft will reach rough consensus of support I do recommend to change the title during the conversion to WG document. ISIS is already hierarchical today as even the abstract of the draft clearly says. Thx, R.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
