Speaking as WG member:
> On Nov 3, 2023, at 10:01 AM, Peter Psenak
> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> On 31/10/2023 23:01, John Scudder wrote:
>> Hi Aijun,
>> I apologize for the length of time it’s taken me to respond to your request.
>> Having now taken the time to study the question properly, inclu
Hi John,
On 31/10/2023 23:01, John Scudder wrote:
Hi Aijun,
I apologize for the length of time it’s taken me to respond to your request.
Having now taken the time to study the question properly, including a review of
both drafts in question, the WG adoption call, and the subsequent email, her
Hi Aijun,
I apologize for the length of time it’s taken me to respond to your request.
Having now taken the time to study the question properly, including a review of
both drafts in question, the WG adoption call, and the subsequent email, here’s
my take.
In large part, your position appears
senak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Lsr] 【Request AD Step In】 Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable
Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04
From: Aijun Wang
Sent: 15 September 2023 08:08
Hi,John:
Thanks in advance for your
Aijun, John,
Technical comments as WG member:
See inline.
> On Sep 15, 2023, at 3:08 AM, Aijun Wang wrote:
>
> Hi,John:
>
> Thanks in advance for your review for the discussion within the mail list.
>
> Normally, the WG adoption call decisions will be coordinated between the
> Chairs.
From: Aijun Wang
Sent: 15 September 2023 08:08
Hi,John:
Thanks in advance for your review for the discussion within the mail list.
Normally, the WG adoption call decisions will be coordinated between the
Chairs. That’s the reason that I sort the judgement directly from the AD.
If the previo
Hi,John:Thanks in advance for your review for the discussion within the mail list.Normally, the WG adoption call decisions will be coordinated between the Chairs. That’s the reason that I sort the judgement directly from the AD.If the previous results represents only Acee’s preference, we would
> On Sep 14, 2023, at 16:01, John Scudder
> wrote:
>
> Tom is right of course, and thank you for pointing it out. (The specific
> section in RFC 2026 to look at is 6.5.1.)
>
> In the meantime, I’ll review the mailing list discussion. However, the most
> desirable outcome would be to settle
Tom is right of course, and thank you for pointing it out. (The specific
section in RFC 2026 to look at is 6.5.1.)
In the meantime, I’ll review the mailing list discussion. However, the most
desirable outcome would be to settle things at the WG level without further
escalation.
—John
> On Sep
From: Lsr on behalf of Aijun Wang
Sent: 14 September 2023 11:38
Hi, Acee:
I admire your efforts for the LSR WG, but for the adoption call of this draft,
you have not convinced me, although I gave you large amount of solid facts.
Then, it's time to let our AD to step in, to make the non-biased
Hi, Acee:
I admire your efforts for the LSR WG, but for the adoption call of this draft,
you have not convinced me, although I gave you large amount of solid facts.
Then, it's time to let our AD to step in, to make the non-biased judgement,
based on our discussions along the adoption call.
We r
11 matches
Mail list logo
