Les,
> You can’t justify any and all changes by saying “It improves scalability”. Very true. Only the ones that do. Which in this case is accurate. > Right now my opinion is that the nature of the changes are so inconsistent > with the design of the protocol that the badness outweighs the goodness. In short, it tastes wrong. Gee, thanks. If you have constructive criticism or an alternative to propose, I would welcome that. > So then why are you accusing us of something else? > > [LES:] I didn’t make an accusation. I beg to differ. > My comment was that just because a customer proposes a specific solution that > does not mean it is the best way to solve the problem – or even a good way to > solve the problem. > I have no doubt that both proposals are well intentioned and were driven by a > real customer ask. You wouldn’t have spent the time you have otherwise. So your comment was completely inappropriate then. Both proposals are customer inspired, but not customer proposed. Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
