Ron, [changed subject, as this seems of little relevance]
> So that I will know whether I am allowed to reply. Wearing a chair's hat has never stopped anyone from replying before. For formal 6man communication Bob and I generally sign with "Best regards, Bob and Ole, 6man co-chairs". Unless that signature is there you can assume I post as an individual. > > Juniper Business Use Only The slight hostility I detect in your replies, I suspect has more to do with the particular employer hat I also wear as opposed to the chair hat. Ole > -----Original Message----- > From: Ole Troan <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 12:22 PM > To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]> > Cc: Sander Steffann <[email protected]>; Robert Raszuk <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; 6man <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Ketan Talaulikar > (ketant) <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in > CRH > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > >> On 25 May 2020, at 17:49, Ron Bonica <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Ole, >> >> When commenting on list, could you indicate whether hats are on or off? > > And that is important to you for this particular message because? > >> Juniper Business Use Only > > Ole > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 6:31 AM >> To: Sander Steffann <[email protected]> >> Cc: Robert Raszuk <[email protected]>; Ron Bonica <[email protected]>; >> [email protected]; 6man <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Ketan Talaulikar >> (ketant) <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in >> CRH >> >> [External Email. Be cautious of content] >> >> >> Sander, >> >>>> Your below list looks like custom made set of RFP requirements to >>>> eliminate any other vendor or any other solution to solve the problem at >>>> hand rather then rational list of requirements. >>> >>> My main customer (an ISP in NL) would fit exactly in the list that Ron >>> sent. They want a simple solution that they can understand and manage, that >>> works over IPv6. Whether the path will include many nodes (>8) is not known >>> at this point, but they want something that can support it in the future. >>> >>> So the list of requirements isn't that strange. >> >> That CRH is simple is a bit like claiming that MPLS is simple just because >> the header has few fields. >> I think you would be hard pressed to substantiate that any solution here is >> particularly simpler than any other. But you are welcome to try. >> >> Everyone claims to want a simple solution, funnily enough the end result is >> usually the opposite. The words "simple" and "source routing" are oxymorons. >> Let's leave the marketing out of this. >> >> Ole _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
