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

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Fri, 01 February 2019 12:26 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
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 74FDE127133 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 04:26:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8TrXViVLxHfU for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 04:25:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 433AE126C7E for <lsr@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 04:25:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tops.chopps.org (47-50-69-38.static.klmz.mi.charter.com [47.50.69.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B2766048F; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 07:25:58 -0500 (EST)
References: <sa65zu31zqk.fsf@chopps.org>
User-agent: mu4e 1.1.0; emacs 26.1
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
To: "lsr\@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Cc: chopps@chopps.org
In-reply-to: <sa65zu31zqk.fsf@chopps.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2019 07:25:57 -0500
Message-ID: <sa64l9n1yqy.fsf@chopps.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/XzZQiMhQ4ZNtd0RChBrfsPYxX5s>
Subject: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 01 Feb 2019 12:26:01 -0000

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 <chopps@chopps.org>; 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_HaBNdfPbgxGIp22cnaWS
>   - 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)