Re: draft-pillay-esnault-ospf-flooding-05.txt

[Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>]

>If flooding is really considered to be a problem, my argument would be 
>that one needs to at least consider why re-using RFC1793 for this specific 
>purpose is the *right* approach.  I'm not really sure of that, but sounds 
>like a spec abuse (and who knows how many assumptions in RFC1793 may 
>become invalid when it's applied to a scenario it wasn't meant for?)

  This document was reviewed by (submitted by!) the OSPF WG, and in
particular was reviewed by the author of RFC 1793 while he was still
participating in the working group.  Also, Alex has specific OSPF
implementation experience and has reviewed this spec.

  I realize that we don't like re-use abuse, but I think that this is
not just a "cute hack" but also a reasonable, low-barrier solution to
something that's not necessarily everybody's problem.  If you don't
agree that it's a problem, then why do you want a heavier weight solution?

  Bill