Hi Ran, While I do support adoption of this TE extension for ISIS I do not agree that current discussion can be named as "odd".
See IETF rules and guidelines perhaps work decent to define conditions when this or that draft is proposing an extension which sits already in the working group charter. Here this proposal is defining a completely new technology "power saving by network auto reconfiguration using TE" and by this alone touches work residing in number of other working groups in IETF. On the other hand we can't and should not extend protocol to only fit one design/architecture as changing such extension while deployed out in the wild is very costly - especially for architectures which to work well do requires a massive almost network wide upgrade. Kind regards, Robert On Sun, Sep 27, 2026 at 3:13 PM RJ A <[email protected]> wrote: > All, > > This is a very odd discussion thread for an Adoption Call. > > IETF rules and guidelines do NOT expect either full engineering details to > be sorted out before an adoption call or for 100% of the mailing list to > agree (Rough consensus by definition leaves a few people in the rough). > > For the record, I support adoption, but I also find the complaints about > engineering details that normally are worked out LATER inside applicable > WG(s) to be very odd procedurally. > > Yours, > > Ran > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
