Tom, The primary point of my email was Richard's presumptuousness.
The comment about having multiple protocols to do the same thing being a bad idea was simply a comment in passing. And it is a bad idea - this was the rationale given by the IETF in taking a position against multiple OAM protocols for MPLS-TP. Thanks, John Sent from my iPhone > -----Original Message----- > From: Henderson, Thomas R [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 2:59 PM > To: John E Drake; Richard Ogier; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [OSPF] Adoption of "Single Hop MANET Interface" as WG > Document > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of > > John E Drake > > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 1:23 PM > > To: Richard Ogier; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [OSPF] Adoption of "Single Hop MANET Interface" as WG > > Document > > > > Richard, > > > > Don't you think you are being a bit presumptuous? I think this > > decision is the prerogative of the working group and I don't > > necessarily think 'fairness' has anything to do with it. Further, > > having multiple drafts in a given subject area is generally > considered > > a bad idea. > > > > Thanks, > > > > John > > > > John, it has been on the OSPF WG charter to develop multiple OSPFv3 > MANET Experimental RFCs. > > - Tom _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
