|
Hi Aijun, The document draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv successfully passed Working Group Last Call, and through a properly conducted process in accordance
with [1], the Working Group reached rough consensus on the document. Following this, the document proceeded to IETF Last Call, during which no new claims were raised beyond those that had already been discussed
and addressed during the WGLC. As the responsible Area Director, I continue to see the rough consensus reached during WGLC as standing. It is both unusual and unexpected to see a document detailing aspects that the WG had previously agreed upon to be non-issues. The IETF
Last Call has concluded, and I kindly ask to avoid repeating the same claims that have already been addressed. Gunter Van de Velde Routing Area Director [1]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2418#section-7.4 From: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi, Murray: The content of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-unsolved-challenge-of-mp-tlv-00 (let’s
call it “New-Query-draft”
)is just to summarize the unsolved challenges that exists in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-10)
(let’s call it
“IESG LC-draft”) “New-Query-Draft”
quotes some contents of “IESG
LC-draft”, and verify them to
the corresponding RFCs, to demonstrate some “key”
statements are untrue. (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-unsolved-challenge-of-mp-tlv-00#section-3) “New-Query-Draft”
gives also some analysis for other potential problems that the “IESG
LC-draft” can arise, for example:
1)
Unsolved Length boundary
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-unsolved-challenge-of-mp-tlv-00#section-5
2)
Ambiguous
“MP-TLV capabilities definition”
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-unsolved-challenge-of-mp-tlv-00#section-6 Let’s
loop out of the LSR WG, because the LSR chairs think the “IESG
LC-draft” is out of the WG, although
there is no convincible responses for the challenges that are raised in “New-Query-Draft”
. We expect the IESG experts can have one neutral comments on the
“IESG LC-draft”,
and gives convincible responses to the challenges that are raised in “New-Query-Draft”. Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom 发件人:
forwardingalgorithm@xxxxxxxx [mailto:forwardingalgorithm@xxxxxxxx]
代表
Murray S. Kucherawy On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 1:45 AM
Aijun Wang <wangaijun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think the primary text of this draft is (almost?) exactly the same as text found in a prior email thread on this topic. Is there anything new in here people should be looking at? -MSK, ART AD |
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
