28, 2025, at 1:04 PM, je_dr...@yahoo.com - je_drake=40yahoo.com at dmarc.ietf.org wrote:What disturbs me is that you folks appear to be getting a free ride on seminal work done by someone else. All you have done is tweak it and apply for patents.Sent from my iPhoneOn Apr 28, 2025, at 11:02 AM
;s not enough? --- tony On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 4:03 PM Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 2025, at 9:38 AM, John Drake <je_dr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I don't see that you folks gave any credit to Richard Ogier (SRI International) who came up wit
As do I
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 21, 2025, at 10:45 AM, Tony Li wrote:
>
>
>
> I still object for the reasons that have been discussed.
>
> T
>
>
>> On Apr 17, 2025, at 11:13 AM, Yingzhen Qu - yingzhen.ietf at gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This email begins a 2 week WG Last
Amen. We need to stop beating dead horses
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 25, 2025, at 12:35 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:
>
> Again speaking as WG chair:
>
> Note that we're not going to spend any more LSR WG time these "challenges" as
> they have already been discussed. The WG is done with IS-IS M
I think this an excellent point. The draft is simply documenting what has
already been deployed in existing IS-IS networks. So, arguments that there are
issues with it are completely specious.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 12, 2024, at 6:43 AM, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> I t
YawnSent from my iPhoneOn Nov 11, 2024, at 6:48 PM, Aijun Wang wrote:Hi, Robert and Mach:Thanks for your comments on this document.It reveals clearly the issues existing within the documents.The Chairs declare repeatedly this document reached WG consensus, apparently it DOESN’T.I have submitted t
This is all blindling obvious to the informed reader.Sent from my iPhoneOn Nov 11, 2024, at 3:49 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
Robert –
RFCs are documents defining normative behavior.
They are not troubleshooting guides.
As for the rest of your comments, please see
https://mailar
Hi,As usual, Les is correct and I completely agree with him. This draft is a classic example of mission creep.JohnSent from my iPhoneOn Nov 4, 2024, at 3:29 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
Tony –
Thanx for the response – but we are not in agreement.
Section 2 of the latest version
Precisely Sent from my iPhoneOn Nov 1, 2024, at 12:13 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
Robert –
Your comments are many years late.
😊
Things like TE, Segment Routing, flex-algo were incorporated into the protocol years ago.
Critiquing the transport because it is being extended to mee
Hi,
I thought Tony’s email was fine. You are the one that refuses to accept that
the WG does not want to pursue this draft, or others that you have continued to
push without any WG support.
What part of ‘No’ do you not understand?
Thanks,
John
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 23, 2024, at 9:19
Amen
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 23, 2024, at 10:52 AM, Tony Li wrote:
>
>
>
>> Why are we having this discussion again ?
>
>
> Because we have one member who refuses to respect the rough consensus of the
> working group. I will not speculate on motivations, but none of the
> possibilit
11 matches
Mail list logo
