On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 11:53 PM Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > Les, >
Les, > And in response to Tony Li’s statement: “…the IETF is at its best when it > is documenting de facto standards” > > 1) I fully believe that our customers understand their requirements(sic) > better than we (vendors) do. But that does not mean that they understand > what is the best solution better than we do. > When a customer comes to me and says “Can you do this?” my first response > is usually “Please fully describe your requirements independent of the > solution.” > > > > If it matters at all, Area Proxy is the result of a customer explaining > his issues and my attempt to address them. I’m sorry you don’t like my > proposal. > > which funny enough is precisely what happened in case of flood reflection as well ;-) Given that customers are different, their networks tend to be different, timelines, deployed sets of technologies and ultimately scar tissue and resulting preferences for better or for worse are different, you end up sometimes with different solutions based on different equirements for "roughly" similar problem if want to ship the stuff, run it and move the world on in a teimely and cost-effective manner. As Acee said, not the time now to think whether IGP should address this problem space (that was draft acceptance timeframe), now the question is how to make sure all possible technical holes are closed & best possible drafts with an eye on future extensibility and an eye on making sure we have something backwards compatible is asked for I'd say ... -- tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
