[Lsr] 答复: Working Group Adoption Poll for "OSPF Extension for Prefix Originator" - draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext-01

["Aijun Wang" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Les:

 

Thanks for your comments.

After the previous discussion within WG list, I had changed the description about the inter-area topology retrieval scenario, which is the original source of this draft that is different from RFC7794.

We point out such use case can be applied where each link between routers is assigned a unique prefix, which is very common within the operator network(in Appendix B. “Special consideration on Inter-Area Topology Retrieval ”).   

 

Would you like to point out the situation that such process can’t be applied and the current draft has not mentioned yet?  Or we can discuss it after its adoption.

We can remove such part before its publication if the situation you referred is common to the operator or enterprise network.

 

 

Best Regards.

 

Aijun Wang

Network R&D and Operation Support Department

China Telecom Corporation Limited Beijing Research Institute,Beijing, China.

 

发件人: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
发送时间: 2019年2月18日 21:22
收件人: Acee Lindem (acee); [e-mail]
主题: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "OSPF Extension for Prefix Originator" - draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext-01

 

To the extent that the draft defines functionality equivalent to that defined in IS-IS RFC 7794 – specifically a means to advertise the source router-id of a given advertisement – it defines a necessary and useful extension to the OSPF protocol – and I support that work.

 

However, in its current form the draft discusses use of this mechanism for inter-area topology discovery. This idea is seriously flawed – as has been discussed extensively on the WG list.

The draft also discusses uses cases related to ERLD, the direction for which is very much uncertain at this time.

 

I therefore feel that the current content of the draft is not what I would expect to see approved by the WG as an RFC and therefore have significant reservations about moving forward with the existing content.

 

I do want to see a draft addressing the source router-id advertisement gap move forward – and if this draft is reduced to focus on that then I can enthusiastically support adoption – but in its current form I cannot indicate support.

 

   Les

 

 

From: Lsr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 5:26 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "OSPF Extension for Prefix Originator" - draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext-01

 

This begins a two week adoption poll for the subject draft. Please send your comments to this list before 12:00 AM UTC on Thursday, February 28th, 2019. 

 

All authors have responded to the IPR poll and there is one  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext> &id=draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext

It is listed multiple times but references the same CN201810650141.

 

Thanks,

Acee