Hi,
I think this work is very interesting and could serve a very broad use case
as mentioned by others in this thread as well.
For example I would like to see, and offer to help out write those, the
working of NETWORK_LATENCY in combination with ADD-PATH.
This particular example would offer a dow
I won't just throw in a +1 ;)
On the serious side; following this discussion closely, I have to agree
that at the least it doesn't feel correct and as if this is the right way
of operating.
It might be correct from a procedure pov but it doesn't feel like it should
go this way.
Thanks Nick for wo
Hi Ron, authors,
Are the "should" and "must" used in the following sentence meant as those
described in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8174?
To minimize packet length, network operators should use 16-bit SIDs
whenever possible. However, when more than 65,520 SIDs are required,
network o
A requests or packet
> formats in the entire document. So, it could be INFORMATIONAL just as well
> as it could be STANDARDS TRACK.
>
>
>
>
> Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* Melchior Aelmans
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 1
Agree with the objection. I don't see how this can progress in the current
state and situation and decisions in this WG being made earlier on this.
Thanks,
Melchior
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 10:55 PM Tony Li wrote:
>
> +1
>
> I object to the adoption.
>
> Tony
>
>
> On Oct 1, 2021, at 1:43 PM, And
