Suresh,
You have brought up this issue on the ospf mailing list a couple
of times and as such the topic has been addressed on the list.
Here is pointer to an email from John Moy (circa July 2001)
http://discuss.microsoft.com/SCRIPTS/WA-MSD.EXE?A2=ind0107L=OSPFD=0I=-3P=15162
and another more
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 13:11:37 -0800 Pyda Srisuresh writes:
=Rohit,
=
=My comments were made solely in reference to the
=draft-katz-yeung draft; not in comparison to any specific draft,
=as you might believe.
[snip]
Suresh,
This is not the first time we are hearing from you on the topic. Your
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:53:28 +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer said:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 08:58:22AM -,
D. J. Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 26 lines which said:
DNSEXT chair Olafur Gudmundsson, who has been paid for BIND work, writes:
For me, this is too much.
Now,
actually, in the IETF, having running code for *one* solution is a good
way
to demonstrate how much of the problem is understood, and if some of
us had our way, it would be impossible to charter a Working Group
*without* the understanding of the problem space being *at least* that
good.
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 08:58:22AM -,
D. J. Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 26 lines which said:
DNSEXT chair Olafur Gudmundsson, who has been paid for BIND work, writes:
For me, this is too much.
For those who use procmail:
:0
* ^From:.*D. J. Bernstein
/dev/null
Please god NO...
I hope EVERYONE deeply involved in a WG documentation process has deep
DEEP conflict of interest problems. I mean if we are not working on the
things we are documenting, how will we know if they work or not. Saying
that WG chairs can not work for companies that need the efforts
I understand.
The flip side to this is that once a solution is
implemented and deployed, there is lethargy to look at
other solutions (or) to expand the problem space. Then,
there is the legacy of this implementation that
future solutions have to live with.
Anyways, this is all the more why I
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 14:14:16 PST, Bill Strahm said:
I hope EVERYONE deeply involved in a WG documentation process has deep
DEEP conflict of interest problems. I mean if we are not working on the
things we are documenting, how will we know if they work or not.
Quite true. And I believe I said
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Pyda Srisuresh wrote:
...
Hence, a statement of applicability and limitations is
warranted in the draft.
Let me be more precise: draft-katz-yeung says how TE in a single OSPF
area can be accomplished. It doesn't aim to address the multi-area
case; *nor does it say that
-Original Message-
From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 3:37 PM
To: Pyda Srisuresh
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Last Call: Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 2
to Proposed Standard
On Wed, 18
I hope EVERYONE deeply involved in a WG documentation process has deep
DEEP conflict of interest problems.
seems a bit of a stretch. it's one thing to have an interest in producing
a technically sound outcome; quite another to have an interest in producing
a particular outcome even when it has
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Pyda Srisuresh wrote:
Let me be more precise: draft-katz-yeung says how TE in a single OSPF
area can be accomplished. It doesn't aim to address the multi-area
case; *nor does it say that it cannot do so*; *nor should it do so*.
There is work going on to address
... snip
As for the comment from John Moy (circa July 2001) about the
availability of an inter-area OSPF draft, I do recall responding
that the inter-area draft was assuming additive properties to
TE metrics to advertise summary info. It is a mistake to assume
that all TE metrics can be
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Kireeti Kompella
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 5:16 PM
To: Pyda Srisuresh
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Last Call: Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 2
to
Hi,
Is it just me, or have RFC's been popping out lately like mushrooms in an
autumn?
Something seems to be working.. :-)
--
Pekka Savola Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall
Systems. Networks. Security. --
do not confuse effort for progress
vint cerf
At 08:33 AM 12/19/2002 +0200, you wrote:
Hi,
Is it just me, or have RFC's been popping out lately like mushrooms in an
autumn?
Something seems to be working.. :-)
Vint Cerf
SVP Architecture Technology
WorldCom
22001 Loudoun County Parkway,
16 matches
Mail list logo
