Subject: RE: Expanded ERO draft

From: John Drake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:05:59 -0800

Based upon e-mail I've seen, I think we've established that it doesn't
provide any additional functionality or utility.  There's a colloquial New
England expression that covers this - as useful as teats on a boar.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 2:24 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: Expanded ERO draft

> Or alternately, one can add the router ID to the unnumbered ERO to 
> remove any ambiguities and also simplify fast reroute.

As Yakov said, no concrete reason for adding the router ID has been
given.  However, we've wasted enough time and bandwidth.  Let's put
this to vote:

Who all think that adding a router ID to the unnumbered ERO subobject
would be beneficial?  A simple yes, no or don't care, please.

Kireeti.

---

From: Bora Akyol <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:05:52 -0800

John

Since you commented on this topic would you care to comment on the 
rest of our draft as well? You can find it as 
draft-akyol-mpls-exp-ero-00.txt.

Regards

Bora