Balazs,
> On 2 Aug, 2016, at 10:29 AM, Balazs Lengyel <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> I prefer a tight definition so even if we allow both 1) and 2) we should
> state that other combinations e.g. trees spliting close to the leaves or a
> mix of 1) and 2) in the same module are not allowed (VERYYYY STRONGLY
> discouraged).
What is the motivation for this very strongly discouraged statement? The
problem I take with this is that you are not only getting zero consistency that
will let a user determine how a model might look (painful for those actually
*using the models* rather than writing them - who are hugely under-represented
in this discussion), but you’re also throwing out a bunch of models (both
inside and outside of the IETF) at the same time.
Apologies to pick specifically on this email, but I have still yet to see any
justification why anything other than a solution that is already being
implemented is preferable to this WG other than it seeming like the WG doesn’t
like the aesthetics of the modules in this case.
I am soon going to shut up on this topic, but it’s quite frankly lamentable
that such a division is being created with no reasonable justification.
Note that the statement that Benoit/Lou/Kent made in Berlin related to applied
config - the structure that is being objected to can be trivially implemented
without those leaves if one wanted to.
r.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
