I oppose WG adoption. The reasons that I opposed adoption the first time remain valid:
1)The use of a prefix to represent a link is a flawed concept 2) RFC 9346 (previously RFC 5316) and RFC 5392 (as well as BGP-LS) are available to address the use cases. The updated draft does nothing to address these points. I would be less than candid if I did not also say that the second adoption call is a waste of WG time. I respect the fact that the draft authors may disagree with the conclusions of the WG – but that does not mean they have a right to ignore WG consensus. Let’s please move on. Les From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Yingzhen Qu Sent: Friday, January 5, 2024 4:23 PM To: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; lsr-chairs <lsr-cha...@ietf.org> Subject: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-wang-lsr-stub-link-attributes (01/05/2024 - 01/19/2024) Hi, This begins a 2 week WG Adoption Call for the following draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-stub-link-attributes/ Please indicate your support or objections by January 19th, 2024. Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any IPR that applies to the draft. *** Please note that this is the second WG adoption poll of the draft. The first one was tried two years ago and you can see the discussions in the archive: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for draft-wang-lsr-stub-link-attributes-02 (ietf.org)<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/Li7wJsaY68gzJ8mXxff7K-Fy_nw/> Thanks, Yingzhen
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
