Seems like we have different understanding on rough consensus .. but let's leave that one aside.
What are technical objections to draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse ? I have not heard even single one so far. Stefan's suggestion for indirection rather the bitfield is clearly not a technical objection but good debate when draft becomes a WG document ? Cheers, R. On Mar 30, 2017 3:19 PM, "Alia Atlas" <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert, > > Take a read through RFC 7282. Consensus calls aren't about majority rules. > It is about hearing technical objections and understanding and responding > to them. > It is quite quite clear that there are technical objections to either > solution. > > Regards, > Alia > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Based on the discussion so far I see that: >> >> A) producing use case document will only delay things further as each use >> case presented will be questioned as possible already today via MTR, MI, >> building new separate network etc ... >> >> B) WG members in majority support adoption of >> draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse. >> Can we get at least sense in the room who is in support of which draft ? >> >> Thx, >> R. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OSPF mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >> >> >
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
