IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Lsr] 【Request AD Step In】 Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04

Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Thu, 14 September 2023 10:40 UTC

Return-Path: <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B1B4C14CF1E; Thu, 14 Sep 2023 03:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o5WeMYZE5r6p; Thu, 14 Sep 2023 03:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-m49197.qiye.163.com (mail-m49197.qiye.163.com [45.254.49.197]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84CA5C14F74E; Thu, 14 Sep 2023 03:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [68.183.233.154]) by mail-m121145.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id A3BE0800082; Thu, 14 Sep 2023 18:40:24 +0800 (CST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 18:38:02 +0800
Message-Id: <AE20A7EE-FA6F-4F19-93CA-1EE495025066@tsinghua.org.cn>
References: <28D58B1F-527C-4F8A-BD18-B74D5965FD14@gmail.com>
Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>, draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <28D58B1F-527C-4F8A-BD18-B74D5965FD14@gmail.com>
To: jgs@juniper.net
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (20G75)
X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUtXWQgPGg8OCBgUHx5ZQUlOS1dZFg8aDwILHllBWSg2Ly tZV1koWUFKTEtLSjdXWS1ZQUlXWQ8JGhUIEh9ZQVkZHR9JVkpLHx5NSxgeT01KGFUTARMWGhIXJB QOD1lXWRgSC1lBWU1DVUpDSFVJSEhVSk5PWVdZFhoPEhUdFFlBWUtVS1VLVUtZBg++
X-HM-Tid: 0a8a93471864b03akuuua3be0800082
X-HM-MType: 10
X-HM-Sender-Digest: e1kMHhlZQR0aFwgeV1kSHx4VD1lBWUc6Oio6GTo4ST1WLwwsCgEqCAk4 EywwCwJVSlVKTUJPTUNDS0lOQ0pKVTMWGhIXVQwaFRwaEhEOFTsPCBIVHBMOGlUUCRxVGBVFWVdZ EgtZQVlNQ1VKQ0hVSUhIVUpOT1lXWQgBWUFIQklONwY+
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/0Neu5j69NPnxEMUmqS76EHTtGrI>
Subject: [Lsr] 【Request AD Step In】 Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 10:40:33 -0000

Hi, Acee:

I admire your efforts for the LSR WG, but for the adoption call of this draft, you have not convinced me, although I gave you large amount of solid facts.
Then, it's time to let our AD to step in, to make the non-biased judgement, based on our discussions along the adoption call.

We request the WG document be based on the https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement/, because it is the first document to initiate the use case, provide the explicit signaling mechanism, and cover more scenarios.

It’s unreasonable to adopt the follower solution and ignore the initiator. We started and lead the discussions THREE years earlier than the current proposal.

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

> On Sep 8, 2023, at 23:16, Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The WG adoption call has completed and there is more than sufficient support for adoption. 
> What’s more, vendors are implementing and operators are planning of deploying the extensions. 
> Please republish the draft as draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-00. 
> 
> A couple of WG members, while acknowledging the use case, thought that it would be better satisfied outside of the IGPs. 
> In fact, they both offered other viable alternatives. However, with the overwhelming support and commitment to implementation
> and deployment, we are going forward with WG adoption of this document. As the Co-Chair managing the adoption, I don’t see
> this optional mechanism as fundamentally changing the IGPs. 
> 
> There was also quite vehement opposition from the authors of draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement. This draft
> purports to support the same use case as well as others (the archives can be consulted for the discussion). Further discussion
> of this other draft and the use cases it addresses should be in the context of draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement
> and not the WG draft.
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee 
> 
>> On Aug 23, 2023, at 3:58 PM, Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> LSR Working Group,
>> 
>> This begins the working group adoption call for “IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement” - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04.
>> Please indicate your support or objection on this list prior to September 7th, 2023. 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email