Yes, support, experimental. It would be beneficial for the authors taking IPR here to explain in few words what we're protecting here that is not covered by TCP & million other congestion things out there already
-- tony On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 4:20 AM Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Acee, > > I support the adoption, and would like to thank the authors for the great > work. > At this point in time, it feels like experimental track is more suitable. > > Cheers, > Jeff > > > > On Nov 22, 2021, at 6:06 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) < > acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > We indicated the intent to adopt of > draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00 as an LSR WG document at > the IETF 112 LSR WG meeting. > We are now confirming WG consensus on this action. Please indicate your > support or objection on this list by 12:00 AM UTC on December 7th, 2021. > > Another question that came to light is whether the document should be > standards track or experimental. If you have an opinion on this matter, > please chime in along with your arguments for one track or the other. We > probably won’t make a final decision on this now but let’s get the > discussion started. > > Here is a link for your convenience: > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding/ > > Thanks, > Acee > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
