> > I'm willing to be persuaded, I just don't see the argument for > > specifying an algorithm with what's been put on the table to this point. > > Ok. So I guess my presentation/draft was not clear enough.
Let me try again. In slide 5: http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/90/slides/slides-90-rtgwg-2.pdf - do we agree that it would be better if node A and B both schedule their SPF at roughly the same time? i.e. wait for the same duration? - if so, what would be your proposition? Bruno _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
