Benoit, Discussion of issues like these (without changing the bits on the wire) are often found in BCPs and other informational RFCs. see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4928.txt as an exmple. I support this draft being adopted by the WG.
Cheers, Andy On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:52 AM, Benoit Claise <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > > My analysis is that the mechanism described in the draft is a local > load-balancing optimization, which doesn't influence the bits on the wire. > > Note that Curtis had a similar concern during the OPSAWG meeting (see the > minutes <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/minutes/minutes-86-opsawg>), > > Curtis Villamizar: Looks like implementation details, not operational issues. > Not appropriate here, even as an Informational RFC. Also has concerns with > specific approach, which requires configuration. > > Therefore, I don't believe that this draft is appropriate for the WG. > > Regards, Benoit (as a contributor) > > This is a call for working group adoption > ofhttp://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing/. > > The authors report that they've incorporated feedback given at > the IETF 86 meeting, in particular > . information model for flow rebalancing > . operational considerations > > We'll be assessing consensus on 24 April 2013. > > Thanks, > > Melinda > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing [email protected]https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
