I don't quite understand where you're coming from.
> I agree with Mike,
Do you mean you agree with making this a WG document?
> although I would suggest that we take a more
> conservative approach.
> I think that we should start by understanding the wider need
> for this technology, as outlined in:
> which demonstrates the applicability of the work to the MPLS WG
> and to the OPS area.
> When we understand those requirements, we will better understand
> the context of this partial solution to the microloop problem.
I think we understand those.
> My concerns in moving this to a WG item are two fold:
> Firstly that adoption of this may inhibit work on one of the more
> complete solutions,
I don't see why or how it would. From the DT recommendation text:
Another positive aspect of the PLSN method is that it does not
preclude later extensions to improve coverage and prevent loops for
left out by PLSN by employing other mechanisms for them (e.g. tunnel-based or
> and secondly that although safe neighbours
> clearly complements some of the other solutions, it would be
> better to design it as an enhancement - to ensure a good
> match - rather than to fit the rest of the solution round safe
I don't understand what you mean here.
Rtgwg mailing list