Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email firstname.lastname@example.org
From: Alex Zinin (azininCISCO.COM)
Date: Mon Jan 29 2001 - 12:28:14 CST
Thanks for the comments, we'll change the text
and submit the new version soon.
-- Alex Zinin
Wednesday, January 17, 2001, 7:11:26 AM, Moy, John wrote:
> Alex, Acee, Derek-
> (Sorry for the incomplete previous message)
> Concerning the document "Alternative OSPF ABR Implementations", > draft-ietf-ospf-abr-alt-03.txt. It seems to me that the most > valuable part of this document is the problem statement in > Section 1.2. This describes what can happen when an ABR is not > connected to the backbone, and is a good subject for an Informational > RFC. Also, another document that we're trying to publish, > draft-ietf-ospf-shortcut-abr-02.txt, references this discussion.
> However, I think that there are a couple of issues with the rest > of the document.
> First, documenting the non-standard behavior of a couple of > OSPF implementations, while valuable for network operators, > will become confusing if/when those implementations change (as > Alex had said cisco might at the last IETF). Perhaps this can > be fixed by documenting the particular software releases where > the description was/is valid, and explicitly saying that they > are subject to future changes.
> Second, since I don't think that we are trying to encourage > other implementations to change to match this document > (if we did, we would be making it a proposed standard), I think > that we don't need all the implementation details it contains. > The document would be clearer, easier to read, and shorter, > if Section 2.2 just hit the high level changes and Sections 3, 3.1, > and 3.2 were simply deleted.
> John > <<John Moy (E-mail).vcf>>