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 multi-area TE *that builds on this > > draft*. In spite of your "recommendations", this multi-area work > > building on draft-katz-yeung has a lot of traction. I therefore have > > no intentions of putting in incorrect or incomplete limitations. > > > > ... > > Kireeti - You apparantly have an attitude and it shows. Outside > of your attitude, you have not said anything in your defence.
You clearly have an agenda. Those who have a background in this matter know this. Those who don't don't know how lucky they are. Let me repeat, using short words with few syllables: 1) draft-katz-yeung says how to do TE in a single OSPF area. 2) draft-katz-yeung does not address the multi-area case. 3) Given (2), it does not make sense to put in lim it ations that say it won't work in the multi-area case when at worst we don't know, and at best it may in fact work like a charm. > All my comments including those on limitations remain unanswered. You confuse "answered, but not to your satisfaction" with "unanswered". ... > > "This document purposely does not say how the mechanisms described > > here can be used for traffic engineering across multiple OSPF areas; > > that task is left to future documents." > > This is *not* what I stated in my comments and is *not* > a characterization of my commnents. I never said that that's what you stated. I just said that that was what I would insert. It's been fun, Kireeti.
