Re: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs - draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

From: John Scudder <[e-mail]>
Sent: 14 June 2022 21:49
Cc: John E Drake; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Tony Li; tom petch; Acee Lindem (acee); [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs - draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding

I’ll point out that option 2 frees us from having to run an annual exception process to renew the code points. I mean, if the draft is being actively worked then of course keep it in draft, but don’t just version-bump it ad infinitum (it wasn’t clear to me if that was what you meant by “continue to refresh”).

<tp>

Another issue I often see is the need to make a Normative Reference to an RFC that is not Standards Track, or BCP, because the authors did not consider it so which then generates extra work for AD and IESG, at least when the issue first arises (as described in RFC4897 and the like).

I do agree that we should publish, that Historic is a perfectly good status for it with the above caveat.  Experimental seems to me the least attractive, e.g. suitable for a manufacturer private approach which may later be taken up and turned into Standards Track.

Tom Petch

Thanks,

—John

> On Jun 14, 2022, at 4:00 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> John -
>
> I would be inclined to agree with you - but...to my knowledge (happy to be corrected...) -
>
> There has been no interoperability testing.
> It is really only possible to do interoperability testing on centralized mode at present, since distributed mode requires standardization/multi-vendor implementation of at least one algorithm - which hasn’t happened yet.
> So, a significant portion of the protocol extensions remain untested. And since enthusiasm for this work has waned - perhaps only temporarily - it seems unlikely that these gaps will be closed in the immediate future.
> Moving to standards track RFC with these gaps seems unwise and to some degree "irresponsible".
>
> I think there are then three viable paths:
>
> 1)Continue to refresh the draft until such time as the gaps are closed or it becomes clear the work is more permanently not of interest
> 2)Capture the current contents as an Experimental RFC - noting the remaining work.
> 3)Capture the current contents as a Historic RFC - noting the remaining work.
>
> I am not in favor of #3.
> I would be OK with #1 or #2.
>
>   Les
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lsr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of John E Drake
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 11:23 AM
>> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=[e-mail]>; John
>> Scudder <jgs=[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Tony Li <[e-mail]>; tom petch <[e-mail]>; Acee
>> Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs - draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-
>> flooding
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I don't understand why we don't just go through the normal Standards track
>> process.  I am sure there are any number of Standards track RFCs which are
>> published and which are neither widely implemented nor widely deployed,
>> but which may become so in the future.
>>
>> As Peter noted in the context of another draft, we are starting to see
>> extreme growth in the size of IGPs  which to me indicates that the subject
>> draft will be perceived as timely in the not too distant future.
>>
>> Yours Irrespectively,
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> Juniper Business Use Only
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Lsr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 12:19 PM
>>> To: John Scudder <jgs=[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: Tony Li <[e-mail]>; tom petch <[e-mail]>; Acee
>> Lindem
>>> (acee) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs - draft-ietf-lsr-
>> dynamic-
>>> flooding
>>>
>>> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>>>
>>>
>>> John -
>>>
>>> Thanx for the information.
>>>
>>> I think what is relevant as regards the dynamic-flooding draft is that we
>> may be
>>> prematurely burying it.
>>> It is true, as Tony has stated, that the marketplace has not shown an active
>>> interest in deploying this technology - but I am not yet convinced that this is
>> the
>>> final disposition. As the scale of IGP networks increases and the use of fast-
>>> flooding is deployed, it may be that interest in dynamic-flooding is revived.
>>>
>>> Publishing the draft as Experimental leaves open the possibilities.
>>> It could still be moved to Historic somewhere down the road if there
>> continues
>>> to be no deployment interest.
>>>
>>> I suppose it is also possible (as your post indicates) that we move it to
>> historic
>>> now and find a way to move it from historic if/when the need arises - but I
>>> frankly find such an approach very odd.
>>>
>>> I do not know why we are in a rush to "bury this". I think Acee has raised a
>> valid
>>> point - given that there was broad consensus on the protocol extensions
>>> themselves - that it would be good to formally preserve the draft content. I
>> think
>>> Experimental is the best way to do that.
>>>
>>>    Les
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: John Scudder <jgs=[e-mail]>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 7:46 AM
>>>> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: Tony Li <[e-mail]>; tom petch <[e-mail]>; Acee
>>>> Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs -
>>>> draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic- flooding
>>>>
>>>> Hi Les and all,
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 13, 2022, at 2:22 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>>>> <ginsberg=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So you are suggesting that we publish something that was never
>>>>> actually
>>>> published as an RFC as a "historic RFC"?
>>>>>
>>>>> The logic of that escapes me.
>>>>
>>>> It so happens I recently became aware that this publication track is
>>>> explicitly considered to be OK.
>>>>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/sta
>>>> tements/designating-rfcs-__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GYT66d5pSskUh-
>>> l3RWY9vSXdEA8b
>>>>
>>>
>> Ue7d8_9gGpIfpVLwvuDJs5gcVY6ekmyERneakOWjjjCfV0DvppQpFMmp2bSw
>> HRw
>>> YyGo$
>>>> historic-2014-07-20/ sez
>>>>
>>>> "An RFC may be published directly as Historic, with no earlier status
>>>> to change (see, for example, RFC 4870). This is usually done to
>>>> document ideas that were considered and discarded, or protocols that
>>>> were already historic when it was decided to document them. Those
>>>> publications are handled as are any other RFCs.”
>>>>
>>>> $0.02,
>>>>
>>>> —John
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lsr mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr__;!
>> !NEt
>>> 6yMaO-gk!GYT66d5pSskUh-
>>>
>> l3RWY9vSXdEA8bUe7d8_9gGpIfpVLwvuDJs5gcVY6ekmyERneakOWjjjCfV0Dv
>> ppQ
>>> pFMmp2bSwFi578Bc$
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lsr mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F8g1L3YtAdGXyvqeiCcjcQaq2Oh1U_NaDrdGJE9Z7udh4p9iK4I6BFT_2TlVi8_gNEdU9ghhVsI564bNBcUqX29MegiE$