Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-05.txt (2/4/2021 to 2/18/2021)

Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-05.txt (2/4/2021 to 2/18/2021) - no consensus + Next steps

Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Mon, 22 February 2021 09:25 UTC

From: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
To: 'Susan Hares' <shares@ndzh.com>, idr@ietf.org
References: <00cf01d707a7$bc976410$35c62c30$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <00cf01d707a7$bc976410$35c62c30$@ndzh.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 17:24:59 +0800
Message-ID: <00b601d708fc$9798bff0$c6ca3fd0$@tsinghua.org.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00B7_01D7093F.A5BEBF10"
Thread-Index: AQE9JIkUwHtB4YXYAlm0fFMCp0T8d6uXroAA
Content-Language: zh-cn
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ht6Itp9zaboZG79G-EQnA4udUKs>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-05.txt (2/4/2021 to 2/18/2021) - no consensus + Next steps
Precedence: list

Hi, Susan:

 

Thanks for your efforts to forward this draft.

Based on your request, we have finished and uploaded the problem definitions
in the newly updated draft
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-idr-vpn-routes-control-anal
ysis and will try to discuss it at Jeffery's thread "[Idr] rd-orf problem
clarification at the local level thread."

 

We have also gotten useful suggestions and considerations for the design of
the updated solution, will update the solution draft accordingly later.

 

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

From: idr-bounces@ietf.org <idr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2021 12:45 AM
To: idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-05.txt
(2/4/2021 to 2/18/2021) - no consensus + Next steps

 

Aijun and co-authors and IDR participants: 

 

Thank you for the lively discussion on IDR regarding this draft.   It is
obvious there is interest in this topic, but no consensus on accepting this
draft in its current form.  

 

The 3 co-chairs of IDR have been discussing this work for the past 2 weeks
in our meeting.  As Jeff mentioned earlier this week, we'd like to see the
problem broken down into the local AS level and push-back through-out the
web of remote BGP Peers.  We encourage the authors and other IDR
participants to discuss the local AS level solution on 

 

[Idr] rd-orf problem clarification at the local level thread.  

 

Please use this thread to clarify this problem.  Based on this
clarification, perhaps the authors can split their work into two parts.  

 

There issues with consensus this solution's push-back process past the local
AS.  These include: definition of the problem, determining if there are gaps
in current solutions (Prefix-ORF), IPR issues on proposed solution, and
additional refinement of the solution.    

 

Prior to any consideration of the solution beyond the local AS, the IDR
chairs would like to see a clear definition of the problem in a draft.
This draft may not be published, but it will help the IDR chairs and the WG
have a clear description of the problem. 

 

Cheers, Sue

Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-… Susan Hares
Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-… Aijun Wang