The LSR Chair's digressive comments for the adoption call stir up my curious for this draft.
After reviewing this document, I admit it is one interesting and viable solution to find one possible flooding topology. But, what's the point to standardize it? The document states also "We are not proposing that this algorithm be standardized, nor that the working group use this as a basis for further standardization work", then what's the reason that "the working group chooses to do so"? I suggested it is published as one Information document if it is intended to provide some information to the community. Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom -----Original Message----- From: forwardingalgori...@ietf.org [mailto:forwardingalgori...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2025 3:16 AM To: lsr <lsr@ietf.org> Cc: Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>; Sarah Chen <sarahc...@arista.com> Subject: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Call on "An Algorithm for Computing Dynamic Flooding Topologies" - draft-chen-lsr-dynamic-flooding-algorithm-02 After some disruption, we are getting back to the normal work of the LSR working group. This begins the start of a 3-week WG adoption poll for "An Algorithm for Computing Dynamic Flooding Topologies”. This draft specifies a centralized algorithm utilizing the RFC 9667 dynamic flooding framework. The intended status is Experimental. Please express your support or objection to this draft by July 5th, 2025. The extended (3 week) WG adoption is to allow for several US holidays. Thanks, Acee _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org
