On 8/9/19 14:55, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Fernando Gont wrote:
> >>
> >> Why do these kind of arguments emerge right now instead of 5 years
> >> ago? We left the “problem “ for 5 years? And suddenly we notice them?
> >> How interesting.
>
> > One possibility: All this
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 13:05, Fernando Gont wrote:
>
> On 6/9/19 18:32, Chengli (Cheng Li) wrote:
> >
> > But I have a question:
> >
> > Why do these kind of arguments emerge right now instead of 5 years ago?
> > We left the “problem “ for 5 years? And suddenly we notice them? How
> > interesting.
On 6/9/19 18:32, Chengli (Cheng Li) wrote:
>
> But I have a question:
>
> Why do these kind of arguments emerge right now instead of 5 years ago?
> We left the “problem “ for 5 years? And suddenly we notice them? How
> interesting.
One possibility:
All this kind of arguments did emerge a long tim
Hi Bruno,
Agree. I am very curious that why so many emails everyday? And I saw the POVs
again and again in different format. I think you have explained very clear.
It looks to me like SRv6 NP draft is going to be published as a RFC. But
actually it is a WG item only，and a normative reference to
Fernando Gont wrote:
>>
>> Why do these kind of arguments emerge right now instead of 5 years
>> ago? We left the “problem “ for 5 years? And suddenly we notice them?
>> How interesting.
> One possibility: All this kind of arguments did emerge a long time ago
> -- NAmel
Fernando,
> Ron,
>
> On 5/9/19 06:01, Ron Bonica wrote:
> > Fernando, Zhenqiang,
> >
> > You both have valid points. Maybe I am becoming too tolerant of
> > deviations from the specification.
>
> This is not a deviation in the spec. It's an outright violation of the spec.
>
> This topic has a
Ron,
On 5/9/19 06:01, Ron Bonica wrote:
> Fernando, Zhenqiang,
>
> You both have valid points. Maybe I am becoming too tolerant of
> deviations from the specification.
This is not a deviation in the spec. It's an outright violation of the spec.
This topic has a rich history in 6man, which I wil
