Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> writes:
I didn't see any client/app data in this proposal.. There are
other drafts out there that seem to be talking about that, which
I also don't like (as wg member )
The way I look at them and seeing authors referencing directly those
drafts is that this draft is just a transport for the new stuff to be
loaded on top. Maybe I am wrong, but not sure ...
[as wg-member] I see this as well, but that's a debate for another day I think,
as this particular draft has other (TE) uses which it directly talks to.
[as wg-chair] Once this document is a WG document then the WG is free to rip
from it anything it finds objectionable. Anything is possible as this is only
an adoption call, not a WGLC for publication.
Thanks,
Chris.
> 2. If we know that proposed solution may work only on a subset
of
> links and only in specific flat topologies do we still proceed
?
It says "stub-links" right in the title so yeah I guess it's only
working with a subset of links. :) Apparently this is useful to
some people.
Oh I should say" subset of stub link types,.
Thx !
R.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
