If we can't verify the routing solution from anyone, how we can proceed in IETF?
Hesham On Tue, Apr 2, 2024, 7:17 PM Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong= [email protected]> wrote: > 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]) > 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 >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
