what I read is the suggestion to publish something where everything one the planet is becoming non-conformant for the fun of doing something new and forcing people to do something new with my assumption the author of the email won’t be the one implementing or deploying it. Moreover, the new proposals are not in anyway resolving the problem long term, only way we can resolve the problem properly is by designing a large fragment space which is a flagday by its nature and hence ain’t gonna happen until utter desperation hits and the protocol envelope is burnt to crisp. As to wisdom: people breaking IGPs by doing fun new things for the sake of doing fun new things do end up with limited career success in serious operators and vendors IME but yes, whether this is unwise or wise may depend on career goals pursuit …
anyway, this is all not particularly productive anymore, I outlined the reality of what can/will happen in the 2 preconditions that are set in stone and we are hitting here and best we can do now is probably wait until the alternate reality proposals fade … I wish for the days Moy wouldn’t let anyone on the projector with his slides until stuff was implemented and trial deployed 😉 * tony Juniper Business Use Only From: Christian Hopps <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, 7 December 2023 at 11:59 To: Tony Przygienda <[email protected]> Cc: Gyan Mishra <[email protected]>, Tony Li <[email protected]>, Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023) [External Email. Be cautious of content] Tony Przygienda <[email protected]> writes: > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 7:52 AM Gyan Mishra <[email protected]> > wrote: > > ... > Gyan> What Bruno is trying to provide I think strengthens the > draft with the MUST normative language for enable/disable > configuration controls. As this is pre standard implementation > if the devices go out of compliance immediately that is “ok” as > I see it all during incubation period trailblazing the new > features and comes with the territory. So they would just have > to upgrade to RFC standard version to be back to compliance. > > > more unwise words were seldom spoken What is actually being said here, that in order to claim that one implements this new draft (once it becomes an RFC) one must implement it? I'm confused, as that's just reality, not sure what is "unwise". Thanks, Chris. > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!D0xtTd7ZBIEehlgJOVZyVFNyOWKMOMK00ZqkV2hCuMA6eFer4PNGXw_FzAwW6Qp4mXirdvGdVuf2lA$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!D0xtTd7ZBIEehlgJOVZyVFNyOWKMOMK00ZqkV2hCuMA6eFer4PNGXw_FzAwW6Qp4mXirdvGdVuf2lA$>
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
