Re: [Lsr] 答复: Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Aijun,

WG adoption should be done based on the draft content, the quality of 
the solution it describes and not based on the draft age or order.

Multiple people have pointed out over the years that the solution that 
you propose in your draft - e.g. using router-id of 0 to indicate the 
unreachability is broken and lacks the backward compatibility aspect. 
Your original draft did NOT include the unreachable metric and even 
though you added it later (way after it was proposed in the other 
draft), your draft still uses the original router-id 0 idea. The fact 
that you need the PUAM Capabilities Announcement in your draft speaks 
for itself.

Though you may have been the first one to try to solve the problem in 
the IETF draft, your solution is still incorrect. As a result of your 
inability to listen to the comments an alternative draft was written 
that is technically superior, backward compatible, has wide support from 
vendors as well as operators, including ones that were originally 
co-authors on your draft and decided to join the alternate draft based 
on its technical advantages, has been implemented and deployed in the field.

As a matter of fact, I have invited you to join our draft several times, 
but you refused. You insisted on pushing your draft.

my 2c,
Peter





On 06/09/2023 07:56, Aijun Wang wrote:
> Hi, Acee:
> 
> AGAIN, before making some assertions, please check the following fact:
> 
> Have you noticed the 00 version of 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-event-notification/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-event-notification/> was submitted on July 5, 2021?
> 
> But the description about the short lived notification in 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-06#section-7 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-06#section-7> was on March 26, 2021.
> 
> Then, which draft was the first?
> 
> For the adoption call or merge efforts, I think the WG should consider 
> the following facts:
> 
> 1)Which draft is the first to provide the use cases?
> 
> 2)Which draft is the first to propose explicit signaling for unreachable 
> information?
> 
> 3)Which draft is the first to propose short lived notification?
> 
> 4)Which explicit signaling mechanism is simpler?
> 
> 5)Which draft provides more mechanisms to cover more scenarios?
> 
> The base document should be selected based on the answers of the above 
> questions.
> 
> Select the base document doesn’t mean that it can’t be changed before 
> the adoption(I haven’t said “Without Change” is the merge condition).
> 
> Actually, we welcome more authors to join us to finalize the document 
> and solution.
> 
> As one of the most important WG within IETF, I think LSR WG should 
> respect the original contributions to the WG.
> 
> It is too hurry to consider or adopt only the draft that you prefer, 
> especially the follower draft.
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Aijun Wang
> 
> China Telecom
> 
> *发件人:*[e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *代表 *Acee 
> Lindem
> *发送时间:*2023年9月6日0:56
> *收件人:*Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>
> *抄送:*Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) 
> <ginsberg=[e-mail]>; Huzhibo 
> <huzhibo=[e-mail]>; Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>; 
> linchangwang <[e-mail]>; lsr <[e-mail]>
> *主题:*Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix 
> Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04
> 
> Hi Aijun,
> 
> When the WG discussion first indicated that this was a use case that 
> needed to be addressed, I don’t dispute that you immediately added it to 
> your draft.
> 
> I have no doubt you would have purported support of any use case under 
> discussion.
> 
> However, the first draft to address this use case with a short-lived 
> notification was 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-event-notification/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-event-notification/>
> 
> Based on WG feedback and collaboration of multiple vendors, this draft 
> evolved to draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce.
> 
> While you’ve incorporated elements of the draft under discussion, your 
> draft still includes pieces (sometimes conflicting) from previous use cases.
> 
> There was an effort to merge the drafts but you declined unless your 
> draft was used (without change) as the base. I’m not sure your motivation.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Acee
> 
> 
> 
>     On Sep 1, 2023, at 20:25, Aijun Wang <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi, Acee:
> 
>     Act as LSR chair, I think you should be more responsible to make any
>     unfounded assertions:
> 
>     We have described the previous statements in
> 
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-06#section-7 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-06#section-7>, March 26, 2021, one year before the 00 version of draft-ppsenak(March 25,2022)
> 
>     Then, which draft copy or incorporate which draft?
> 
>     Aijun Wang
> 
>     China Telecom
> 
> 
> 
>         On Sep 1, 2023, at 20:05, Acee Lindem <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>         Hi Aijun,
> 
> 
> 
>             On Aug 31, 2023, at 23:36, Aijun Wang
>             <[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>             Hi，Acee:
> 
>             Please
>             readhttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-12#section-7 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-12#section-7>before making misguide assertions:
> 
>             “The advertisement of PUAM message should only last one
>             configurable period to allow the services that run on the
>             failure prefixes are switchovered.”
> 
>         I guess I haven’t kept up with all the elements of the draft
>         under adoption that you continue to incorporate into your draft.
>         This has been a continuing theme since initial discussed of the
>         application signaling use case. While I have no interest in
>         improving your draft, making the LSP/LSA short-lived conflicts
>         with the other scenarios your draft purports to address.
> 
>         Acee
> 
> 
> 
>             Best Regards
> 
>             Aijun Wang
> 
>             China Telecom
> 
>             *发件人:*[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>[mailto:[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>]*代表*Acee Lindem
>             *发送时间:*2023年9月1日0:50
>             *收件人:*Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>             *抄送:*Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>             <ginsberg=[e-mail]
>             <mailto:ginsberg=[e-mail]>>; Huzhibo
>             <huzhibo=[e-mail]
>             <mailto:huzhibo=[e-mail]>>; Peter Psenak
>             <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; linchangwang
>             <[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>; lsr <[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>             *主题:*Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable
>             Prefix Announcement" -
>             draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                 On Aug 31, 2023, at 12:32, Robert Raszuk
>                 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>                 Hi Acee,
> 
>                     In any case, one will need to update the signaling
>                     routers and the routers acting on the signal.
> 
>                 I guess this is clear to all.
> 
>                     Additionally, your request for the adoption was that
>                     the draft have a stronger statement about the
>                     mechanism being used for solely for signaling for
>                     applications (e.g., BGP PIC).
> 
>                 As to the applicability my comment was that either draft
>                 should state in strong normative language that this is
>                 applicable only to applications which data plane uses
>                 encapsulation to the next hop.
> 
>                 Said this draft-wang introduces the additional
>                 signalling, sort of trying to assure that all nodes in
>                 an area understand the new messages - but I am not sure
>                 if even advertising PUAM capability means that it will
>                 be actually used for all destinations ?
> 
>             No - but while the draft under adoption (ppsenak-lsr…) is
>             for an ephemeral signal which the WG agreed was a valid use
>             case, in the other draft, the LSAs are long-lived and are
>             also may be used for other purposed than signaling (e.g.,
>             reread both sections 4 and 6 of draft-wang-lsr…). This draft
>             starting with a whole different use case but selectively
>             added mechanisms from ppsenak-lsr…
> 
>             I seem to recall you were a strong proponent of limiting the
>             scope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                     By responding to this Email inline, some may believe
>                     you support the assertion that we should start the
>                     adoption of both drafts. Please be clarify this.
> 
>                 Well the way I see this is that adoption call is a bit
>                 more formal opportunity for WG members to express their
>                 opinion on any document. But maybe LSR (for good
>                 reasons) have different internal rules to decide which
>                 document should be subject to WG adoption and does sort
>                 of pre-filtering.
> 
>                 If adoption call proves document has negative comments
>                 or lacks cross vendor support it simply does not get
>                 adopted.
> 
>                 Maybe I am just spoiled looking at how IDR WG
>                 process works :-)
> 
>             You replied to an Email inline suggesting adoption of both
>             drafts. That is what I think could have been misconstrued -
>             especially by those who didn’t follow the discussion until
>             now who think you are agreeing with this recommendation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                     As for your other comment that this could be
>                     accomplished with BGP or an out-of-bound mechanism,
>                     that is true but that could be true of many problem.
>                     However, the solution under adoption has running
>                     code and wide vendor support.
> 
>                   Right ... As I wrote to Peter - perhaps this is just a
>                 pragmatic approach and flooding is what link state uses
>                 so be it.
> 
>                 As you know I did try in the past to propose BGP
>                 Aggregate withdraw but then feedback of the community
>                 was that PEs do not go down that often to justify the
>                 extension.
> 
>             Hmm…We seem to have broad support for the LSR application
>             signaling use case.
> 
>             Thanks,
> 
>             Acee
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                 Best,
> 
>                 Robert
> 
>             _______________________________________________
>             Lsr mailing list
>             [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>             <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>
> 
> 
>         _______________________________________________
>         Lsr mailing list
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>         <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Lsr mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>
>