Hi Xueson, > My intension was not to talk about math/engineering/marketing or compare the > size of marketing department. Them are not relevant to this thread.
You are the one who suggested we leave it up to the market… > I want to make clear about IETF process. In my understanding the document > does not need to be perfect at this stage, as long as it is in the right > direction to solve some acknowledged problem( IGP scalability). Comments will > be helpful if it could provide ideas about how to improve. That’s what we’ve been trying to tell you all along: - If there is a benefit to zones, it’s not clear to us. You need to do a better job articulating that. - The transition mechanisms seem awkward and painful. Can you reduce the complexity? > But IMO the discussion in the mailing list about this draft has gone off the > rails of technology, including keeping challenging tradeoff between value and > complexity, which seems reasonable at the first sight, but at this stage, has > turned out to be a question with no right answer and may bring endless > argument. Technology is all about maximizing benefits while minimizing costs. This is why we don’t wire houses using gold and silver. Yes, this does seem to be an endless argument. Welcome to the IETF. Regards,, Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
