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

[John Scudder <[e-mail]>]

Tom is right of course, and thank you for pointing it out. (The specific section in RFC 2026 to look at is 6.5.1.)

In the meantime, I’ll review the mailing list discussion. However, the most desirable outcome would be to settle things at the WG level without further escalation.

—John

> On Sep 14, 2023, at 12:25 PM, tom petch <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> From: Lsr <[e-mail]> on behalf of Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 14 September 2023 11:38
> 
> 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.
> 
> <tp>
> 
> I think that what you have in mind is an appeal, as per RFC2026.
> 
> The first stage therein is to involve the Chairs, and while Acee is one, he is not the only one.
> 
> Have you involved the other Chair, on or off list? That would seem to me to be next step.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> 
> We request the WG document be based on the https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FBaOZ68azDC2Puoe7BZVn9qBD-T-BvvJIoPE539Fz7ZmoBeBkYkjEH4eFsk7HxvaaacJE5KWnyE3KA$ , 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FBaOZ68azDC2Puoe7BZVn9qBD-T-BvvJIoPE539Fz7ZmoBeBkYkjEH4eFsk7HxvaaacJE5IDNwDbvQ$
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FBaOZ68azDC2Puoe7BZVn9qBD-T-BvvJIoPE539Fz7ZmoBeBkYkjEH4eFsk7HxvaaacJE5IDNwDbvQ$