Hi, I thought Tony’s email was fine. You are the one that refuses to accept that the WG does not want to pursue this draft, or others that you have continued to push without any WG support.
What part of ‘No’ do you not understand? Thanks, John Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 23, 2024, at 9:19 PM, Aijun Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Tony: > > I would like to remind you for your offensive descriptions of the ongoing > discussions. > > Let's focus on the technical arguments. > I have raised the example at > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/vLgK5PrTPZUAyZ-x7NSSddWqBzU/, > describes that to implement the slice/glue of the big IS-IS TLV, the > information of “What constitutes a key” MUST be documented. > Please responses on the concerns for the described example. > > Adopt one proposal as WG document, or even published it as RFC, is just > start of the life of the technology. The influenced technology lies in the > real deployment in future. > We should look forward further the application possibilities of some > solutions within the operator's network, not just publish it into RFC as the > end of such technology. > > I think you should have remembered that I have objected one of your proposal > for hierarchy level in IS-IS > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-extended-hierarchy/ > --------It can be implemented, but it can't be deployable----now, you, and > the authors of this WG document, has aborted its forwarding. > > The MP-TLV proposal have the similar flavor. > > Best Regards > > Aijun Wang > China Telecom > > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Tony Li > 发送时间: 2024年10月23日 22:51 > 收件人: Hannes Gredler <[email protected]> > 抄送: Aijun Wang <[email protected]>; Christian Hopps > <[email protected]>; Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]>; lsr-chairs > <[email protected]>; lsr <[email protected]> > 主题: Re: [Lsr] It's time to find one general solution to Big-TLV problem > Re: IETF 121 LSR Slot Requests > > > >> Why are we having this discussion again ? > > > Because we have one member who refuses to respect the rough consensus of the > working group. I will not speculate on motivations, but none of the > possibilities are good. > > This places the chairs in the difficult position of having to deal with a > DoS attack. I want to express my support for the chairs in taking whatever > action they feel is necessary and appropriate in this circumstance. I > suspect this kind of behavior is only going to become more common over time. > > Regards, > Tony > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
