From: Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> Sent: 14 October 2021 13:13
Does it junk the mail if the one true and proper form is used: "IS-IS" (i.e., with the hyphen)? :) <tp> Yes. That is what the thread about Prefix unreachable that Acee kicked off has in the Subject: and it has junked about 60 of those for me. Of course they still exist, I just have to remember to look for them, whereas ones I send with that character string do not make it to the list although they are in the Sent folder. Sometimes it seems to inspect the body and junk on the basis of that but clearly not in this case as I have received your e-mail. It even junked an e-mail that I sent to another WG but I cannot see what it saw in that! Tom Petch Thanks, Chris. > On Oct 14, 2021, at 7:15 AM, tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com> wrote: > > Top posting for a different topic > > My ESP, one of the larger ones in the world, is classifying most of the LSR > e-mails as junk. Yes, I have reported them as not junk but doubt if it will > make a difference. > > To me it is obvious that anything with that well known abbreviation that was > coined by ISO for their IGP in the subject line is going to receive > unfavourable treatment so it may be that while many are responding there are > others who like me have an ESP who is busy filling their junk folder. > > Equally if I send an e-mall with that abbreviation it goes into a black hole > with no MDN nothirng > > Tom Petch > > ps perhaps this is the considered opinion of the ESP on the I-D:-) > > ________________________________________ > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee) > <acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> > Sent: 12 October 2021 20:05 > To: lsr@ietf.org > > Speaking as WG Chairs: > > The authors of “Prefix Unreachable Announcement” have requested an adoption. > The crux of the draft is to signal unreachability of a prefix across OSPF or > areas when area summarization is employed and prefix is summarised. We also > have “ and OSPF Extension for Event Notification” which can be used to > address the same use case. The drafts take radically different approaches to > the problem and the authors of both drafts do not wish to converge on the > other draft’s method so it is understandable that merging the drafts really > isn’t an option. > > Before an adoption call for either draft, I’d like to ask the WG: > > > 1. Is this a problem that needs to be solved in the IGPs? The use case > offered in both drafts is signaling unreachability of a BGP peer. Could this > better solved with a different mechanism (e.g., BFD) rather than flooding > this negative reachability information across the entire IGP domain? > 2. Assuming we do want to take on negative advertisement in the IGP, what > are the technical merits and/or detriments of the two approaches? > > We’ll reserve any further discussion to “WG member” comments on the two > approaches. > > Thanks, > Acee and Chris > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
