-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of
Kireeti Kompella
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 5:16 PM
To: Pyda Srisuresh
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Last Call: Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 2
to Proposed Standard
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.
There is no secret or hidden agenda here. Stop making
insinuations.
It is no secret that I have a competing draft, titled,
"OSPF-TE: An experimental extension to OSPF for Traffic
Engineering" (filed as draft-srisuesh-ospf-te-04.txt).
I sent messages in the past to the OSPF WG, comparing my
draft to the katz-yeung draft. This is what Rohit Dube was
alluding to in his last e-mail.
Make no mistake. The comments I sent to the IETF were solely
in response to the IETF last call on the katz-yeung draft; not
in comparison with any specific draft. I mentioned this to Rohit
in my last e-mail to him. It is part of the IETF process to let
the wider community know of the concerns with the draft. I am
doing my share. I backed all my comments with explanations.
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.
No dispute here. My comment in this context was to fix the title.
My remaining comments are to do with fixing confusing terminology
and adding limitations of the model vis-a-vis mixed networks.
All my comments including those on limitations remain unanswered.
You confuse "answered, but not to your satisfaction" with "unanswered".
...
Your answers were either incomplete or riddled with attitude so
as to sidestep the original comment.
<... snip>
regards,
suresh