> I didn't see any client/app data in this proposal.. There are other drafts > out there that seem to be talking about that, which I also don't like (as > wg member ) >
The way I look at them and seeing authors referencing directly those drafts is that this draft is just a transport for the new stuff to be loaded on top. Maybe I am wrong, but not sure ... > 2. If we know that proposed solution may work only on a subset of > > links and only in specific flat topologies do we still proceed ? > > It says "stub-links" right in the title so yeah I guess it's only working > with a subset of links. :) Apparently this is useful to some people. > Oh I should say" subset of stub link types,. Thx ! R.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
