Hi, Christian:

We all know these principles.
Don’t you realize there are some preferences existing?
Let's focus on the solutions analyzes.


Best Regards

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> 
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 5:26 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>; Acee Lindem (acee) 
<acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; Peter Psenak 
<ppsenak=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] "Prefix Unreachable Announcement" and "IS-IS and OSPF 
Extension for Event Notification"



> On Oct 14, 2021, at 1:25 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) 
> <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> The rest of your argument seems to be that we should move forward w the PUA 
> solution just because the draft has been around for a long time. Sorry, that 
> isn’t a valid argument.

I sort of got this feeling as well.

> Either the WG thinks PUA is good solution or it doesn't - that is the only 
> basis on which a decision to adopt/not adopt should be made. The fact that 
> you keep refreshing/updating the draft carries no weight.

Speaking as a WG chair here -- this is spot on. Drafts may exist and be 
commented on by a WG for years, with the authors making edits they feel address 
some or all of those comments. The fact that the draft keeps being revised and 
resubmitted does not imply that it is somehow ready for adoption or that the WG 
is required to do so. It is not a guarantee that it will achieve 
standardization. It may be that through revision it gets there, and it may be 
that it doesn't. 

Consider that there are plenty of drafts that are submitted and adopted based 
on their first submission. Sometimes in very little time indeed -- this happens 
when there's an obvious problem that needs solving, the proposed solution is 
very good and everyone in the WG clearly agrees on it.

Thanks,
Chris.


>   Les

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to