Thanks Tom. We will try to avoid use the coined abbreviation during the discussions.
Aijun Wang China Telecom > On Oct 14, 2021, at 19:16, tom petch <[email protected]> wrote: > Top posting for a different topic > > My ESP, one of the larger ones in the world, is classifying most of the LSR > e-mails as junk. Yes, I have reported them as not junk but doubt if it will > make a difference. > > To me it is obvious that anything with that well known abbreviation that was > coined by ISO for their IGP in the subject line is going to receive > unfavourable treatment so it may be that while many are responding there are > others who like me have an ESP who is busy filling their junk folder. > > Equally if I send an e-mall with that abbreviation it goes into a black hole > with no MDN nothirng > > Tom Petch > > ps perhaps this is the considered opinion of the ESP on the I-D:-) > > ________________________________________ > From: Lsr <[email protected]> on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee) > <[email protected]> > Sent: 12 October 2021 20:05 > To: [email protected] > > Speaking as WG Chairs: > > The authors of “Prefix Unreachable Announcement” have requested an adoption. > The crux of the draft is to signal unreachability of a prefix across OSPF or > areas when area summarization is employed and prefix is summarised. We also > have “ and OSPF Extension for Event Notification” which can be used to > address the same use case. The drafts take radically different approaches to > the problem and the authors of both drafts do not wish to converge on the > other draft’s method so it is understandable that merging the drafts really > isn’t an option. > > Before an adoption call for either draft, I’d like to ask the WG: > > > 1. Is this a problem that needs to be solved in the IGPs? The use case > offered in both drafts is signaling unreachability of a BGP peer. Could this > better solved with a different mechanism (e.g., BFD) rather than flooding > this negative reachability information across the entire IGP domain? > 2. Assuming we do want to take on negative advertisement in the IGP, what > are the technical merits and/or detriments of the two approaches? > > We’ll reserve any further discussion to “WG member” comments on the two > approaches. > > Thanks, > Acee and Chris > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
