The Ref1 Link for the “Major Issue Unsolved” should be https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/ZBf0hBj-oeCWxsztAEXzjIxAaMU/
Aijun Wang China Telecom > On Oct 15, 2024, at 20:00, Aijun Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Yingzhen, Chris and Acee: > > There maybe some misapprehension for the overall WGLC process: > > I have raised the concerns on this WGLC draft on September 6 for the “Major > Issues Unsolved” of current proposal, and wait for the authors to respond. > (Ref1: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/Q-fzVS7tHvRL3xUMdiFwBpuKWlY/) > > But, there is no any response, only the author declares himself repeatedly > that the revised draft address all raised concerns. > > I raised against such declaration on September 26(Ref2: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/Q-fzVS7tHvRL3xUMdiFwBpuKWlY/), but > received still no any response from the authors. > > I don’t want to repeat the against for each of such declaration later, but it > doesn’t represent my concerns are addressed. > > I don’t know what’s the authors thinks, maybe they want to shun such raised > issues? Or maybe they have no reasonable explanation for these obvious > existing concerns? > > Then, I think we shouldn’t forward this document until it can address the > “major issues unsolved” (Ref1), or accept the proposal that limits its > application scope to only the enumerated two TLVs, instead of the general > solution can apply also to other MP-TLVs. > > I want to EMPHASIZE that such proposal is NOT the right direction to solve > the aimed problem. > > We need the authors, or the LSR Chairs to solve such disputes, or else, we > will need our AD to step in. > > Aijun Wang > China Telecom > >>> On Oct 15, 2024, at 04:28, Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >> Dear LSR WG, >> >> After much good discussion and work over the last 3 months the WGLC of >> draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv has now reached the point of rough consensus and so >> the chairs are declaring the WGLC complete. >> >> A good compromise has been reached on the remaining topic under discussion >> with the addition of the RECOMMEND to add configuration control to >> implementations of the feature. This balanced the desire of operators for >> direct configuration with the vendors who have long standing deployed >> implementations of multi-tlv which operate based on need due to indirect >> configuration. >> >> Thanks again for all the good work. >> >> >> Acee, Chris and Yingzhen (LSR Co-Chairs) >> _______________________________________________ >> Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
