Re: draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-09.txt

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

>   Sorry for not being clear. Here's what it is:

>   1. After the document has been LC'ed, authors, WG chairs,
>      and ADs realized that we can have the same problem as
>      with RSVP because of the FCFS range

>   2. Changing the IANA considerations section in the document
>      would need to be approved by the WG, which means another
>      WG LC and another IETF LC. This would mean another rev
>      and at least another month of delay.

I gather you expect much rumbling at an attempt to remove FCFS?

>   3. Given that the document has been widely implemented and
>      deployed, and should have been published long time ago,
>      we did not want to delay it even more.

>   4. However, we do want to solve the FCFS problem. The agreement
>      between ADs, WG chairs, and authors, was to ship the document
>      as is, and then submit another draft that just updates the
>      IANA section of draft-katz-yeung and removes FCFS.

>   Does it make more sense now?

Yes.

I don't exactly like it, but can probably be arm twisted into going
along.

PS, do you have a stuckee pegged do to this? Strike while the iron is
hot and all...

Thomas