[Lsr] 回复: Re: 答复: Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]

[li zhenqiang <[e-mail]>]

Support

Zhenqiang Li
________________________________
[e-mail]

发件人： Dongjie (Jimmy)<mailto:[e-mail]>
发送时间： 2019-02-11 16:47
收件人： Lizhenbin<mailto:[e-mail]>; Christian Hopps<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
主题： Re: [Lsr]答复: Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
Support moving forward with the centralized and distributed solutions specified in separated drafts. As discussed in previous mails, the procedure and protocol extensions needed for the two modes could be different, and a particular network may only want to use one mode.

As for the centralized solution, maybe it could be refined with the advantage of the centralized part in both existing drafts.

Best regards,
Jie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lsr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lizhenbin
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2019 5:36 PM
> To: Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: [Lsr] 答复: Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
>
> Hi Chris & Acee,
>
> > - Jan 2, 2018 Publication: draft-li-dynamic-flooding and
> drfat-li-dynamic-flooding-isis
> >   published centralized solution.
> >
> > - Mar 5, 2018 Publication: draft-cc-isis-flooding-reduction and
> draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction
> >   published distributed solution
>
> Thanks for your summary we know the fact that at beginning there was not any
> confliction between the two drafts.
>
>
> > - Jun 28, 2018 draft-li-dynamic-flooding-05 published (2 authors)
> >   - *SMALL CHANGE TO SUPPORT DISTRIBUTED ALGORITHM*.
> >   - Does not specify distributed algorithm only how to indicate one in use,
> small change.
>
> I do not think it is a small change. It is to introduced the totally new solution which
> was already defined in the other existing draft. It is not an appropariate behavior
> and the root cause of the potential confliction.
>
>
> I also think the distributed solution includes more than the algorithms defined in
> the draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-00  and the overlapped signallings  defined
> in the draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-00/draft-li-dynamic-flooding-03. Since the
> co-authors could not merge the draft, though the existing suggestion proposed is
> try to separate the two drafts, there is still overlap on the distributed solution
> between the two drafts which may be the source of continuous confliction in the
> future. In order to avoid the situation I would like to propose following
> suggestions:
> - move both the two drafts forward in parallel keeping draft-li-dynamic-flooding
> focus on the centralized solution and draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction on the
> distributed solution.
> - draft-li-dynamic-flooding can keep on refining the centralized solution without
> mentioning distibuted solutions.
> - draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction can keep on refining the distributed solutions.
> For the sigalling which can be shared by the two modes, the draft can indicate the
> distributed solutions reuse the signalling defined in draft-li-dynamic-flooding
> without defining new signalling.
> - both drafts change the draft names to reflect different solutions without
> causing confusion.
>
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Zhenbin (Robin)
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> 发件人: Lsr [[e-mail]] 代表 Christian Hopps [[e-mail]]
> 发送时间: 2019年2月1日 20:25
> 收件人: [e-mail]
> 抄送: [e-mail]
> 主题: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
>
> Summary of where we are at with dynamic flooding reduction:
>
>  - We have a well written original work that came first and described the
> problems as well as a TLVs to allow for a centralized solution
> (draft-li-dyanmic-flooding). We do not need to standardize the centralized
> algorithm.
>
>  - A small change to this work allowed for distributed algorithms and for outside
> work on distributed algorithms to continue in parallel.
>
>  - We have another original work that started primarily as a distributed algorithm
>    (draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction)
>
>  - Finally we also have:
>    - Cross-pollination of ideas.
>    - Failed attempts at merging.
>    - An authors list "Arms-Race".
>
> Moving forward:
>
> - During IETF 103 I proposed we have no conflict if we:
>
>    1) adopt draft-li-lsr-dyanmic-flooding as the base WG document.
>    2) have authors of draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction work on a distributed
> algorithm as they started with.
>
> - Acee agreed during the meeting (as chair) that this was the best way forward.
> We had some agreement form the floor as well.
>
> - Any good ideas regarding the distribution of a centralized topology can be
> debated and added (with appropriate attribution) to the base document after
> we adopt one.
>
> - This is what happens when we adopt a document as WG work, we work on it.
>
> - The original authors of the distributed solution can continue to work on their
> distributed algorithm in a separate document which would also need
> standardization.
>
> Does anyone see a serious problem with this path forward?
>
> Thanks,
> Chris & Acee.
> LSR Chairs.
>
> Christian Hopps <[e-mail]> writes:
>
> > We've had the authors of the individual conflicting drafts take a shot at merging
> their work.
> >
> >    This has failed.
> >
> > Here is the full history (which I also summarized during IETF103 as well). I will
> send a second email discussing this.
> >
> > - Jan 2, 2018 Publication: draft-li-dynamic-flooding and
> drfat-li-dynamic-flooding-isis
> >   published centralized solution.
> >
> > - Mar 5, 2018 Publication: draft-cc-isis-flooding-reduction and
> draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction
> >   published distributed solution.
> >   - mention of centralized solution asserting it is not good choice.
> >
> > - IETF 101 (Mar 2018)
> >   - Video:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHmT4ytMn4w&list=PLC86T-6ZTP5j_HaBN
> dfPbgxGIp22cnaWS
> >   - Minutes:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/minutes-101-lsr-00
> >   - draft-li-dynamic-flooding-02 presented (1 author). at IETF 101
> >     - Generally well received.
> >   - draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-00 (4 authors) presented.
> >     - Serious problems immediately found during presentation -- not fully
> baked.
> >
> > - Mar 18, 2018 draft-li-dynamic-flooding-03 published (1 author)
> > - Mar 27, 2018 draft-li-dynamic-flooding-04 published (1 author)
> > - Apr 20, 2018 draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-01 revised
> > - Jun 28, 2018 draft-li-dynamic-flooding-05 published (2 authors)
> >   - *SMALL CHANGE TO SUPPORT DISTRIBUTED ALGORITHM*.
> >   - Does not specify distributed algorithm only how to indicate one in use,
> small change.
> >
> > - Jul 2, 2018 draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-02 published
> >
> > - IETF 102 (Jul 14, 2018)
> >   - draft-li-dynamic-flooding-05 presented.
> >   - draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-02 presented.
> >
> > - Sep 12, 2018 draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-03 (4 authors)
> >   - *LARGE CHANGE ADDS NEW CENTRALIZED SOLUTION*.
> >
> > - Sep 20, 2018 draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-04 (4 authors)
> >
> > - Oct 21, 2018 draft-li-lsr-dynamic-flooding-00 and -01 (5 authors)
> >
> > - IETF 103 (Nov 3, 2018)
> >
> >   - Chairs give direction
> >
> >     - draft-li-lsr-dynamic-flooding-05 having come first, being well written and
> not
> >       specifying a distributed algorithm (merely allowing for one) is the
> correct vehicle
> >       to adopt as a base document.
> >
> >     - Distributed algorithm work (the original basis for
> draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction)
> >       should continue as a separate document form the base which would
> thus we have no
> >       conflicts.
> >
> > - In the meantime the authors try and merge work, this fails.
> >
> > - Dec 3, 2018 draft-li-lsr-dynamic-flooding-02 (7 authors)
> >
> > - Dec 10, 2018 draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-00 (4 authors)
> >
> > - Jan 7, 2019  draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-01 (8 authors)
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr