Current name: lsr-isis-hierarchical-isis (which has too many “isis” in it as well)
Proposed name: lsr-isis-extended-hierarchy Les From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 7:58 AM To: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>; Tony Li <tony...@tony.li> Cc: lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Working Group Adoption Call for "Hierarchical IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-hierarchical-isis-01 From: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net<mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> Date: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 10:49 AM To: Tony Li <tony...@tony.li<mailto:tony...@tony.li>> Cc: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>>, "lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>" <lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Working Group Adoption Call for "Hierarchical IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-hierarchical-isis-01 > What would you suggest? How about: draft-ietf-lsr-n-level-isis-00 ? I don’t like this – if we are going to split hairs on terminology, I’d suggest “IS-IS Level 3-8 Hierarchy”. Thanks, Acee r. On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 4:42 PM <tony...@tony.li<mailto:tony...@tony.li>> wrote: Robert, Thank you for your support. What would you suggest? Tony On Aug 13, 2019, at 6:40 AM, Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net<mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> wrote: Support. However assuming the draft will reach rough consensus of support I do recommend to change the title during the conversion to WG document. ISIS is already hierarchical today as even the abstract of the draft clearly says. Thx, R.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
