Hi, I share the concern with Alvaro and Stewart. No doubt that satellite is a hot topic, but it is not clear whether and how the solution in this document can be verified.
Another question is about the document title, it describes one specific solution for satellite routing, as mentioned by the author on IETF 119, there can be other solutions which may or may not follow this approach. Then it seems not appropriate to call this document “an architecture”. How about renaming it as “one routing solution for satellite networks”? Best regards, Jie From: rtgwg <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 10:49 PM To: Routing WG <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Adoption request: draft-li-arch-sat Hi! I have the same concerns as Stewart. We don’t have the experience or expertise to review the document, including the assumptions. This topic is interesting, but without the ability to review it properly, I don’t think this draft (or any other related work) should be adopted. Alvaro. On April 2, 2024 at 3:00:36 AM, Stewart Bryant ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>) wrote: I support as a technical solution, but have reservations as to whether this will be deployed. Is there operator or regulator support for this approach. Stewart
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
