Re: [OPSAWG] Call for adoption, draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing/

Benoit,

Discussion of issues like these (without changing the bits on the wire) are
often found in BCPs and other informational RFCs. see
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4928.txt as an exmple. I support this
draft being adopted by the WG.

Cheers,
Andy

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:52 AM, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:

>  Dear all,
>
> My analysis is that the mechanism described in the draft is a local
> load-balancing optimization, which doesn't influence the bits on the wire.
>
> Note that Curtis had a similar concern during the OPSAWG meeting (see the
> minutes <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/minutes/minutes-86-opsawg>),
>
> Curtis Villamizar: Looks like implementation details, not operational issues.
> Not appropriate here, even as an Informational RFC.  Also has concerns with
> specific approach, which requires configuration.
>
>  Therefore, I don't believe that this draft is appropriate for the WG.
>
> Regards, Benoit (as a contributor)
>
> This is a call for working group adoption ofhttp://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing/.
>
> The authors report that they've incorporated feedback given at
> the IETF 86 meeting, in particular
>   . information model for flow rebalancing
>   . operational considerations
>
> We'll be assessing consensus on 24 April 2013.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Melinda
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing listOPSAWG@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>
>