Subject: RE: draft-bhatia-manral-diff-isis-ospf-01.txt

From: mike shand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:03:50 +0100

Folks,
	I really don't see what purpose this draft serves. Rather than informing 
people, it seems more likely to re-ignite the IGP wars. Statements like:-

"- On broadcast links flooding is not done reliably. A changed LSP is 
flooded to all IS-IS routers, however no retransmissions occur.  The 
reliability in database exchange on a broadcast link is achieved by 
periodic database exchange. This is done as CSNP's are sent periodically by 
the DIS, which initiates the entire database exchange process all over again."

while technically not wrong, are somewhat inflammatory and give the 
impression that this is a bad thing, whereas some of us might think it is a 
good thing, since it avoids unnecessary acknowledgements.

People can, and have argued about such things for ever, but it does little 
good. You don't choose an IGP on the basis of such technical minutiae. If 
you want to know the technical differences between the protocols, go read 
one of the many books. The IETF doesn't need to add to the existing wealth 
of information. If you want to choose an IGP, you probably do it on the 
basis of what your ops people are most comfortable with anyway.

My biggest concern is that if this is going to be blessed as an IETF 
document, then we need to expend considerable effort making sure that 
statements such as the one above are accurate and unbiased. I don't think 
any of us have the energy or inclination to do that, and I don't think the 
IETF should be wasting its time on this.

The consensus of the RTG area meeting seemed to be "to what question is 
this document the answer?". I don't think we have seen a satisfactory 
explanation.

	Mike

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:27:56 -0400

>     I really don't see what purpose this draft serves. Rather than 
> informing people, it seems more likely to re-ignite the IGP wars. 

I don't really understand the purpose of this doc, either. My 
inclination is to say this would do more damage than good, in the long 
run, and also that it actually might be very harmful, in the future, if 
either of the protocols change. If there are specific suggestions to 
change either protocol, then we should handle them in the normal way.

:-)

Russ

- -- 
[email-masked] CCIE <>< Grace Alone

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:45:01 -0400

I'll third the motion to abandon but I doubt it will do anything to
dissuade the authors efforts to advance the document to
informational status.

Acee

Russ White wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>  
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: PGP Desktop 9.0.2 (Build 2424)
>
>iQA/AwUBQwO58xEdu7FIVPTkEQLZ7QCgizGIF6rmVsxlDbkyTYhzfLz21MIAn1Nz
>yo2Axe7M19VUYLEChhwUxKfP
>=ai0U
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>  
>