Re: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs - draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding

[Tony Li <[e-mail]>]

Les,

The market looked at the technology and decided that it was not interested.  If that’s not the definition of ‘obsolete’, I don’t know what is.

Tony


> On Jun 13, 2022, at 10:27 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Tony -
> 
> "Historic" is for 
> 
> " A specification that has been superseded by a more recent
>   specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete..."
> 
> Hard to see how that applies here.
> 
> Although I appreciate Tom's concern, the fact that we may not be clear on how to transition from Experimental to Standard (for example) seems to me to be a problem to be solved outside of the context of this specific draft - not something that should prevent us from using Experimental.
> 
> In regards to the state of the draft, here is my summary:
> 
> 1)There are multiple implementations of the draft
> 2)I am not aware that interoperability of the implementations has been demonstrated 
> 3)To the extent that interoperability could be demonstrated, I think only centralized mode could be validated at this time
> 4)Interoperability of distributed mode requires standardization of one or more algorithms - which means the drafts defining those algorithms first have to progress
> 
> To me, that makes "Experimental" the right track as further work is required before we can say that all aspects of the draft are mature enough to consider Standards track.
> 
>   Les
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lsr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Tony Li
>> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 10:12 AM
>> To: tom petch <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs - draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-
>> flooding
>> 
>> 
>> Tom,
>> 
>> In this particular case, I believe the choices are Experimental or Historic.  I’m
>> fine with either.
>> 
>> T
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jun 13, 2022, at 8:43 AM, tom petch <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> From: Lsr <[e-mail]> on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)
>> <acee=[e-mail]>
>>> Sent: 10 June 2022 15:10
>>> 
>>> Initially, there was a lot interest and energy in reducing the flooding
>> overhead in dense drafts. Now, it seems the interest and energy has waned.
>> IMO, this draft contains some very valuable extensions to the IGPs. I
>> discussed this with the editors and one suggestion was to go ahead and
>> publish the draft as “Experimental”. However, before doing this I’d like to get
>> the WG’s opinion on making it experimental rather standards track.
>> Additionally, I know there were some prototype implementations. Have any
>> of those been productized?
>>> 
>>> <tp>
>>> The trouble with experimental is what happens next?  Does it stay
>> experimental for ever or is there some assessment at some point when it
>> becomes Standards Track?  What are the criteria?  I am not aware of an RFC
>> describing such a process and the IPPM WG seemed uncertain what to do
>> with RFC8321 and RFC8889 when such an issue arose.
>>> 
>>> The shepherd report for 8321 said
>>> 'the measurement utility of this extension still is to be demonstrated at a
>> variety of scales
>>>  in a plurality of network conditions'
>>> as the justification for experimental but did not state how that might later
>> be demonstrated.
>>> 
>>> Tom Petch
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Acee
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lsr mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lsr mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr