I’d support publishing it as Experimental.
If there’s a consensus that an additional presentation in RTGWG would be
useful, Yingzhen and I would consider it.
Cheers,
Jeff
> On Jun 13, 2022, at 12:17, Acee Lindem (acee)
> wrote:
>
> Hi Tony, Les, Tom,
>
> When the WG was focused on this pro
Hi,Peter:
Then the final effects of UPA are the followings:
1) If the specified prefix exist, the receiver will delete it upon receiving
the UPA message—-But the specified prefix may still be reachable via other
summary address.
2)If the specified prefix doesn’t exist, it depends on the local beh
Hi Tony, Les, Tom,
When the WG was focused on this problem space, there was a lot of good work
done by the authors, as well as, a lot of WG energy. We had general consensus
on a solution that supported both distributed and centralized flooding
algorithms. There was also prototyping and impleme
Les,
> So you are suggesting that we publish something that was never actually
> published as an RFC as a "historic RFC"?
Yes, I see no point in being indirect. It used to be that the path to
publication was brief. We’ve now ossified to the point where a technology can
go through an entire
Tony -
So you are suggesting that we publish something that was never actually
published as an RFC as a "historic RFC"?
The logic of that escapes me.
These days expired drafts are never lost, so if someone wants to resurrect this
draft it is certainly possible to do so even if it languishes as
Les,
The market looked at the technology and decided that it was not interested. If
that’s not the definition of ‘obsolete’, I don’t know what is.
Tony
> On Jun 13, 2022, at 10:27 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> wrote:
>
> Tony -
>
> "Historic" is for
>
> " A specification that has been
Tony -
"Historic" is for
" A specification that has been superseded by a more recent
specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete..."
Hard to see how that applies here.
Although I appreciate Tom's concern, the fact that we may not be clear on how
to transition from Ex
Tom,
In this particular case, I believe the choices are Experimental or Historic.
I’m fine with either.
T
> On Jun 13, 2022, at 8:43 AM, tom petch wrote:
>
> From: Lsr on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)
>
> Sent: 10 June 2022 15:10
>
> Initially, there was a lot interest and energy in red
there should be a preso this ietf in rtg wg showing a framework that can be
used to evaluate such questions. if time permits (per Jeff). tony
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 5:43 PM tom petch wrote:
> From: Lsr on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee) 40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>
> Sent: 10 June 2022 15:10
>
>
From: Lsr on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: 10 June 2022 15:10
Initially, there was a lot interest and energy in reducing the flooding
overhead in dense drafts. Now, it seems the interest and energy has waned. IMO,
this draft contains some very valuable extensions to the IGPs. I discussed
Aijun,
On 13/06/2022 15:08, Aijun Wang wrote:
Hi, Peter:
Here I want to ask you one question:
If the specified detailed prefix doesn’t exist in the receiver’s route table,
what the receiver will do when it receives the UPA information of this
specified prefix?
it's up to the receiver to pr
Hi, Peter:
Here I want to ask you one question:
If the specified detailed prefix doesn’t exist in the receiver’s route table,
what the receiver will do when it receives the UPA information of this
specified prefix?
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
> On Jun 10, 2022, at 23:16, Peter Psenak wrote:
>
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
