On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Pyda Srisuresh wrote:
Let me be more precise: draft-katz-yeung says how TE in a single OSPF
area can be accomplished. It doesn't aim to address the multi-area
case; *nor does it say that it cannot do so*; *nor should it do so*.
There is work going on to address multi-area TE *that builds on this
draft*. In spite of your "recommendations", this multi-area work
building on draft-katz-yeung has a lot of traction. I therefore have
no intentions of putting in incorrect or incomplete limitations.
...
Kireeti - You apparantly have an attitude and it shows. Outside
of your attitude, you have not said anything in your defence.
You clearly have an agenda. Those who have a background in this
matter know this. Those who don't don't know how lucky they are.
Let me repeat, using short words with few syllables:
1) draft-katz-yeung says how to do TE in a single OSPF area.
2) draft-katz-yeung does not address the multi-area case.
3) Given (2), it does not make sense to put in lim it ations that
say it won't work in the multi-area case when at worst we don't
know, and at best it may in fact work like a charm.
All my comments including those on limitations remain unanswered.
You confuse "answered, but not to your satisfaction" with "unanswered".
...
"This document purposely does not say how the mechanisms described
here can be used for traffic engineering across multiple OSPF areas;
that task is left to future documents."
This is *not* what I stated in my comments and is *not*
a characterization of my commnents.
I never said that that's what you stated. I just said that that was
what I would insert.
It's been fun,
Kireeti.