Hi Acee and Chongfeng,
First of all, as a coauthor I support to progress this document to publication.
Please see some replies inline:
发件人：Chongfeng Xie
收件人：Acee Lindem ;lsr ;teas
;spring
时 间：2024-01-20 10:44:46
主 题：Re: [Lsr] [spring] Shepherd's Review of "Applicability of IS-IS
Hi Acee,
Many thanks for your review and suggestions. I agree with them and will update
the draft accordingly.
Please see some further replies inline [Chongfeng]:
From: spring On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2024 2:42 AM
To: Lsr ; t...@ietf.org; spr...@ietf.org
(Update - Avee - I now see the shepherds email that you sent a short while ago.
It got stored in a different folder in my mailer due to the addition of other
WGs on the TO list. ☹)
But it doesn’t change my response.)
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Teas On Behalf Of Les
Acee -
I am not sure what your full intent is.
There are a number of statements in the NRP scaling document regarding the use
of routing protocols - you selected only one to comment on - not sure why.
The gist of the multiple comments serves to discourage the use of routing
protocols as a
Acee, I think I disagree with your request to tone down the scaling
concerns regarding SPF calculations in the NRP scaling documents. These
are separate SPFs, so many of the techniques that help scale coping with
SPF calculation related to base topology changes do not apply. One or
two extra
Speaking as WG member:
Hi Les,
You probably saw my shepherd review of this document.
> On Jan 11, 2024, at 2:33 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> wrote:
>
> Chongfeng –
> We are at the stage of last call.
> The document has been presented and discussed previously – it is time for WG
>
Speaking as WG Member and Document Shepherd:
I have reviewed the document and have three comments.
1. The document can go forward implying that
draft-dong-lsr-sr-enhanced-vpn-10 is the accepted solution for supporting
higher scale of NRPs. While the reference is informative, the text
