iMesh telecon: closure and adjacency

[Mark Shephard]

This has been discussed over and over again. It has been decided 
multiple times that by definition an entity is not adjacent to itself. 
Why are we going to discuss it yet again?

On 9/7/10 3:18 PM, Carl Ollivier-Gooch wrote:
> One issue that was raised (more or less as an aside while talking about
> iMesh compliance) is whether an entity should be considered adjacent to
> itself. The spec currently says that it is not, for first adjacencies.
> Also, the spec says that a second adjacency call should not return the
> originating entity, even if it otherwise would.
>
> Here's a link for a doodle poll on possible times for discussion of this
> point.
>
> http://www.doodle.com/grz22wai95muq85d
>
> Given how short our time is before the IMR tutorial (and given that we
> presumably would all like to have implementations be compliant at that
> time), I personally think it's a good idea for us to converge on the
> current spec pending a possible change. Others may disagree.
>
> Carl
>