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

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Speaking as WG chair: 

On 10/19/20, 1:06 PM, "Christian Hopps" <[e-mail]> wrote:



    > On Oct 16, 2020, at 4:47 AM, Aijun Wang <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > 
    > Hi, Les and experts in LSR:
    > 
    > I am open to the removal of the this appendix to forward this draft.

    That's good news, thank you Aijun.

    Speaking for the chairs,

    We believe we have reached WG consensus (seems better than just rough even with some authors asking for the change) at this point on the removal of the disputed use-case appendices.

    Could you please republish the document w/o the disputed sections?

    Thanks,
    Chris.

I'll add that RFC 7221, section 1.2 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7221#section-1.2  includes a very good description of the IETF process for WG document ownership and consensus. 

Thanks,
Acee

    > But as stated in previous mail, providing this can assist the user/reader of the draft. We often encounter the questions in the mail list that what the usage of protocol/bit definition in some drafts.
    > 
    > Actually, we did not expand the discussion of this part in this draft. The description of this part is very concise.
    > 
    > If you insist this, I can update the draft in recent days, together with other comments on this draft.
    > 
    > Other comments are welcome also!
    > 
    > Aijun Wang
    > China Telecom
    > 
    >> On Oct 16, 2020, at 13:51, Les 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.
    >> 
    >> 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 doc
    >