Hi all,
The draft agenda has been posted:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/108/materials/agenda-108-lsr-00.html
Please let me know if you have any questions or if we missed anything.
Presenters,
We have a packed schedule, so please prepare your presentation accordingly.
Please email me
Thanks. I am really glad to understand the LSR chair's thoughts.
Well OK. I understand LSR would like a high bar for IGP extension.
But your comparison with " research WG or a technical journal " makes no sense.
It's common sense.
And your statement on the complexity twisted too many none
Huaimo -
I am not going to comment on the history issues - though I understand why that
is of significance to you.
Otherwise, I don't think you are appreciating the key point many of us are
making - which is that we do not need to introduce a new concept "zone" (subset
of an area).
It is
Hi Acee,
> Conversely, now that the IS-IS TTZ has adopted the Area Proxy mechanisms of
> having an Area/Zone leader generate a single LSP representing the Area/Zone,
> the two proposals are very similar.
[HC]: It looks like the other way around. In 2013, IS-IS TTZ .00 draft
describes the
Dear LSR WG,
We've uploaded a new revision of draft-wang-lsr-igp-extensions-ifit-00 to
replace draft-wang-lsr-ifit-node-capability-advertisement. In this new
revision, Node and Link Attribute TLVs are extended to IGP for signaling the
supported IFIT capability of egress and/or intermediate
My comments about what the WG should be doing are "As WGChair", I'm not
commenting directly on TTZ, but on the broader comments/questions below.
> On Jul 16, 2020, at 6:19 AM, Tianran Zhou wrote:
>
> Hi Henk,
>
> Thanks very much for your long email.
> I fully agree with what you said on the
Hi Henk,
Thanks very much for your long email.
I fully agree with what you said on the criterion. This is generally always
correct.
But still you cannot score a draft with it.
That means I can probably say most of the IETF RFCs has no use.
I can also list one hundred RFCs that is not
Hello Tianran,
Warning, long email again.
What's the criterion to evaluate the benefit?
As people have asked before, did any provider or
enterprise ever use rfc8099 in their network ?
As I wrote, one of my criteria is rfc1925. I like
technology to be understandable. I like protocols to
be
