Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-06

[Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>]

> On Oct 16, 2020, at 1:51 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Aijun -
> 
> The point I am making is very focused.
> 
> This draft is defining a protocol extension. As such it is necessary that this be Standards track as adhering to the normative statements in the draft are necessary for interoperability.
> 
> What is discussed in the Appendix is a use case. It is not normative and there are strong opinions on both sides as to whether this is an appropriate use case or not.
> In the context of this draft, I have no interest in trying to resolve our difference of opinion on this use case. I simply want the protocol extension to move forward so that we have another tool available.
> 
> If you want to write a draft on the use case discussed in the Appendix please feel free to do so. That draft may very well not be normative - Informational or BCP may be more appropriate - because it will be discussing a deployment scenario and a proposal to use defined protocol extensions as one way to solve problems in that deployment scenario. Such a draft might also be more appropriate in another WG (e.g., TEAS). The merits of using prefix advertisements to build a topology could then be discussed on its own.
> 
> Please do not try to avoid having a full discussion of the merits of using prefix advertisements to derive topology by adding it to a draft that is (and should be) focused on simple protocol extensions.

[As WG member]

I find this very compelling and so support the removal of the referred to non-normative appendices.

Thanks,
Chris.

> 
> Thanx.
> 
>   Les
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 6:51 PM
>> To: 'Jeff Tantsura' <[e-mail]>; 'John E Drake'
>> <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: 'Christian Hopps' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Les Ginsberg
>> (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-
>> [e-mail]
>> Subject: RE: [Lsr] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-06
>> 
>> Hi, Les, John and Jeff:
>> 
>> Let's reply you all together.
>> In my POV, The standard document should not define solely the protocol
>> extension, but their usages in the network deployment. As I known, almost
>> all the IETF documents following this style.
>> And, before adopting one work, we have often intense discussion for what's
>> their usages.
>> Such discussion in the mail list and statements in the document can certainly
>> assist the reader/user of the document get the essence of the standard, and
>> follow them unambiguously.
>> 
>> Regarding the contents of appendices, as stated in the section, "The
>> Appendix A heuristic to rebuild the topology can normally be used if all links
>> are numbered." I think this can apply almost most of the operator's network,
>> and facilitate the inter-area TE path calculation for central controller, or even
>> for the head-end router that located in one area that different from the tail-
>> end router.
>> 
>> Keeping the contents of appendices does not have the negative impact of
>> the protocol extension, it is just one reference for the usage of this
>> extension.
>> One can select not refer to it, if their networks are deployed with large
>> amount of unnumbered links. But for others, the heuristic applies.
>> 
>> Best Regards
>> 
>> Aijun Wang
>> China Telecom
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Jeff
>> Tantsura
>> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 5:28 AM
>> To: John E Drake <jdrake=[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Les Ginsberg
>> (ginsberg) <ginsberg=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; lsr-
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-06
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Jeff
>> 
>>> On Oct 15, 2020, at 11:33, John E Drake
>> <jdrake=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I agree with Les.  This is a simple protocol extension for a specific purpose
>> and there is no reason to include speculation about its use for other
>> purposes, particularly when it is inherently not suited for them.
>>> 
>>> Yours Irrespectively,
>>> 
>>> John
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Juniper Business Use Only
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Lsr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 12:33 PM
>>>> To: Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>>> draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix- [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call
>>>> draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-06
>>>> 
>>>> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I support moving this document forward.
>>>> Similar functionality in IS-IS has proved useful.
>>>> 
>>>> I would however like to repeat comments I made earlier in the review
>>>> of this document.
>>>> The content of the Appendices should be removed.
>>>> The Appendices define and discuss deriving topology information from
>>>> prefix advertisements - which is flawed and should not be done.
>>>> Perhaps more relevant, the purpose of the document is to define
>>>> protocol extensions supporting advertisement of the originators of a
>>>> prefix advertisement. There is no need to discuss how this mechanism
>>>> might be used to build topology information.
>>>> This document should confine itself to defining the protocol
>>>> extensions - similar the RFC 7794.
>>>> 
>>>> If the authors do not agree to do this, I would encourage this point
>>>> to be discussed during IESG review.
>>>> 
>>>>  Les
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Lsr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:15 PM
>>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>>> Cc: [e-mail];
>>>>> [e-mail]; lsr- [e-mail]; Christian Hopps
>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>> Subject: [Lsr] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-06
>>>>> 
>>>>> This begins a 2 week WG Last Call, ending after Oct 29th, 2020, for:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-i
>>>>> et
>>>>> f-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator/__;!!NEt6yMaO-
>> gk!TaSzQThghtCFOuYPS2VjLq
>>>>> hK 8p03Fg3L9LuCGXw8C0X6qRQdrHjKDKHcjkjClpk$
>>>>> 
>>>>> The following IPR has been filed
>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3448/__;!
>>>>> !NEt6yMaO-
>>>> gk!TaSzQThghtCFOuYPS2VjLqhK8p03Fg3L9LuCGXw8C0X6qRQdrHjKDKHcz
>>>>> 5KtUHQ$
>>>>> 
>>>>> Authors,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please indicate to the list, your knowledge of any other IPR
>>>>> related to this work.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Chris.
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lsr mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>>>> __;!!NEt
>>>> 6yMaO-
>>>> 
>> gk!TaSzQThghtCFOuYPS2VjLqhK8p03Fg3L9LuCGXw8C0X6qRQdrHjKDKHcUdm
>> w8
>>>> Lc$
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lsr mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lsr mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr