Re: [mpls] Concerns about ISD

[Tony Li <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tianran,


> My native language is not English, I am sorry if I offended you in the following message. I did not mean to do so.


Thank you very much. Apology accepted.  

I’m sorry that this has been a difficult and frustrating conversation for all of us and language differences make it far harder than it needs to be. I too have found it frustrating and was very hurt that you thought I would intentionally mislead in any way.  I frequently make mistakes and can say the wrong thing, but my intention is to always help build out the Internet in the best possible way.  Altruism has become a rare thing in the IETF, but I still aspire to it.


> In my previous messages, I have presented my concerns on the ISD. And we discussed.
> I think we can then work in the other way. We can demonstrate why the ISD is necessary and good.
> That means, we figure out the cases which require ISD, the solution to implement ISD, and how this ISD implementation is better than a PSD implementation.
> I acknowledge the motivation of using ISD for low stack exploration. But I do not see how one existing ISD proposal, say draft-kompella-mpls-mspl4fa, can work.


You’ve made it clear that you don’t like the ISD approach. It is certainly a bit more complicated than a PSD approach, but you have not explained why you think it cannot work.  It would be good if you could tell us your thinking.

Regards,
Tony