I support WG adoption. The use of IGP flooding to distribute information unrelated to the operation of the protocol negatively impacts the operation of the protocol in support of its primary function - L3 routing. Although I favor discouraging using the protocol in this way, in the event such uses cases are defined, there needs to be a way to minimize the impact - which this draft provides.
Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Christian Hopps > Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2021 1:39 AM > To: lsr@ietf.org > Cc: lsr-...@ietf.org; cho...@chopps.org; draft-acee-lsr-ospf-transport- > insta...@ietf.org > Subject: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-acee-lsr-ospf-transport-instance-02 > > > This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-lsr-ospf-transport-instance/ > > Please indicate your support or objection by May 16th, 2021. > > Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any > IPR that applies to this draft. > > Historical Note: The original OSPF transport instance document was adopted > by the OSPF WG back in 2009, it was last updated in 2014, and then revived as > an individual submission to LSR in Sep 2020. :) > > Thanks, > Chris. > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
