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

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

I want to make sure I'm not misinterpreted here, I'm not asking for a new draft specifying these behaviors. I view these as flooding-algorithm-independent generic behaviors. If there is something wrong or missing from this basic set, they can be fixed via normal WG discussion and update. For a specific centralized of distributed flooding algorithm, these behaviors could be potentially be augmented with backward compatible enhancements. 

Thanks,
Acee

On 2/14/19, 6:00 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Speaking as a WG member, 
    
    I just re-read section 6.7 and all the actions for distributed computation are pretty much intuitive corollaries for the actions for the centralized solution. I see no real reason to remove these. However, there is nothing to prevent improvements to be proposed in an alternate draft. 
    
    Thanks,
    Acee
    
    On 2/14/19, 8:58 AM, "John E Drake" <[e-mail]> wrote:
    
        Hi,
        
        I completely agree with Peter.
        
        Yours Irrespectively,
        
        John
        
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Lsr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
        > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2019 2:30 AM
        > To: Huaimo Chen <[e-mail]>; Acee Lindem (acee)
        > <[e-mail]>; Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
        > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
        > 
        > Hi Huaimo,
        > 
        > On 13/02/2019 22:50 , Huaimo Chen wrote:
        > > Hi Peter,
        > >
        > >     My explanations/answers are in line below with prefix [HC].
        > >
        > > -----Original Message-----
        > > From: Peter Psenak [mailto:[e-mail]]
        > > Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 4:58 AM
        > > To: Huaimo Chen <[e-mail]>; Acee Lindem (acee)
        > > <[e-mail]>; Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
        > > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
        > >
        > > Hi Huaimo,
        > >
        > > On 03/02/2019 17:58 , Huaimo Chen wrote:
        > >> Hi Acee,
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>     I agree with you on keeping the signaling for two modes. The
        > >> other parts for the distributed solution need to be removed.
        > 
        > optimized flooding is not only about algorithm to calculate the flooding
        > topology and the way it is distributed/computed. It is also about local rules to
        > make sure the flooding remains consistent. These are _independent_ of
        > centralized/distributed modes. And it make no sense to specify these rules in
        > two drafts.
        > >
        > > There are no "other" parts specific for the distributed solution.
        > >
        > > [HC] Some behaviors for the distributed solution/mode are described in draft-
        > li-dynamic-flooding. For example, there are a few of places from page 27 to 30,
        > which define the behaviors specific for the distributed solution/mode.
        > 
        > I strongly disagree. The fact that we say in centralized mode area leader
        > recomputes and in distributed mode all nodes recompute make no difference in
        > behavior.
        > 
        > thanks,
        > Peter
        > 
        > >
        > > draft-li-dyanmic-flooding defines:
        > >
        > > 1. the signalling that is common and used by both modes 2. distribution of the
        > flooding-topology, which is specific to centralized mode 3. common behavior of
        > the nodes that support the extension, which is independent of the mode of
        > operation.
        > >
        > > [HC] In addition to these, draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction defines more,
        > including concrete protections, operations, and algorithms for computing a
        > flooding topology.
        > >
        > > Best Regards,
        > > Huaimo
        > >
        > > thanks,
        > > Peter
        > >
        > >
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >> Best Regards,
        > >>
        > >> Huaimo
        > >>
        > >> *From:* Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[e-mail]]
        > >> *Sent:* Sunday, February 3, 2019 11:45 AM
        > >> *To:* Huaimo Chen <[e-mail]>; Christian Hopps
        > >> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
        > >> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft
        > >> Redux]
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >> Hi Huaimo,
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >> See inline.
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >> *From: *Lsr <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> on
        > >> behalf of Huaimo Chen <[e-mail]
        > >> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
        > >> *Date: *Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 12:27 AM
        > >> *To: *Christian Hopps <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
        > >> "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]
        > >> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
        > >> *Subject: *Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft
        > >> Redux]
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >> Hi Everyone,
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >> We proposed the distributed solution first, and Tony proposed the
        > >> centralized solution first. Tony added the distributed solution
        > >> (except for the algorithms to compute flooding topology) into his
        > >> draft. And then we added the centralized solution into our draft. The
        > >> latest versions of the two drafts have largely converged at least at
        > >> the high level to a solution for solving the same problem.
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >> Our draft has multiple key technical advantages over Tony's draft as
        > >> we described in our email to the LSR list, which are summarized below:
        > >>
        > >> 1.       It uses a fraction of flooding resource (i.e., it is multiple
        > >> times more efficient in flooding topology encoding);
        > >>
        > >> 2.       It provides fault tolerance to multiple failures, minimizing
        > >> impact on network convergence, thus minimizing traffic lose; and
        > >>
        > >> 3.       It is simpler and needs less processing time (i.e., faster and
        > >> more efficient) in multiple scenarios.
        > >>
        > >> Based on the technical merits, our draft should be moved forward.
        > >> However, Chair proposed to move Tony's draft forward and have us work
        > >> on a distributed algorithm as we started with.
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >> I think that the distributed solution in Tony's draft needs to be
        > >> removed and they work on the centralized solution. We remove the
        > >> centralized solution from our draft and work on the distributed solution.
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >> I'm against "cutting the baby in half" given that the signaling for
        > >> the distributed solution is a proper subset of what is required for
        > >> the centralized solution. It is undesirable to have different
        > >> signaling for the two modes. For the distributed algorithm you are
        > >> proposing, do see problems with the signaling?
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >> Thanks,
        > >>
        > >> Acee
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >> Best Regards,
        > >>
        > >> Huaimo
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >> -----Original Message-----
        > >>
        > >> From: Lsr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
        > >>
        > >> Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 7:26 AM
        > >>
        > >> To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
        > >>
        > >> Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
        > >>
        > >> Subject: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >> 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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_
        > >> watch-3Fv-3DqHmT4ytMn4w-26list-3DPLC86T-2D6ZTP5j-
        > 5FHaBNdfP&d=DwICAg&c
        > >> =HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-
        > h5LGhEW
        > >> H-
        > s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=kykK2jUejhafPHOrWXu0yvNk7XsXUoDYsWjFoFGHeT
        > g&s
        > >> =cBWxI4Hu1GZNWxuUZRREnZNg-cZZYbdrLHRXKsUama4&e=
        > >> bgxGIp22cnaWS
        > >>
        > >>>   - Minutes:
        > >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf
        > >> .org_meeting_101_materials_minutes-2D101-2Dlsr-
        > 2D00&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh
        > >> 63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-
        > s_xXX
        > >>
        > up3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=kykK2jUejhafPHOrWXu0yvNk7XsXUoDYsWjFoFGHeTg&s=
        > 1UTDcj
        > >> zO1b-Ful7k87ItzHcvqzRveIK_m_FI9eIDLFs&e=
        > >>
        > >>>   - 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)
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >> _______________________________________________
        > >> Lsr mailing list
        > >> [e-mail]
        > >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mai
        > >> lman_listinfo_lsr&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
        > ndb3voDTXcWz
        > >> oCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-
        > s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=kykK2jUejhafPHOrW
        > >>
        > Xu0yvNk7XsXUoDYsWjFoFGHeTg&s=BTZ1l1KpTxr_U3n0pZnknvuPBGxRM9ul08q
        > CKpaE
        > >> eXk&e=
        > >>
        > >
        > > .
        > >
        > 
        > _______________________________________________
        > Lsr mailing list
        > [e-mail]
        > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
        > 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_lsr&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0
        > UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-
        > s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=kykK2jUejhafPHOrWXu0yvNk7XsXUoDYsWjFoFGHeT
        > g&s=BTZ1l1KpTxr_U3n0pZnknvuPBGxRM9ul08qCKpaEeXk&e=