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

["Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lsr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Aijun Wang
> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 1:48 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: John E Drake <[e-mail]>; Christian Hopps
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Jeff Tantsura
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; lsr-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-06
> 
> Hi, Les and experts in LSR:
> 
> I am open to the removal of the this appendix to forward this draft.

[Les:] Great!! Please do so.

   Les


> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr