RE: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?
"UTTARO, JAMES" <ju1738@att.com> Wed, 20 December 2017 12:29 UTC
Return-Path: <ju1738@att.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0139212D866; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 04:29:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z3BU34DPLZh4; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 04:29:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64A07127AD4; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 04:29:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049463.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049463.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id vBKCRLNY048617; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 07:29:17 -0500
Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by m0049463.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2eyf0y8t43-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 20 Dec 2017 07:29:17 -0500
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vBKCTGiN014610; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 07:29:16 -0500
Received: from mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com [130.9.128.239]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vBKCT7Pw014553 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 20 Dec 2017 07:29:11 -0500
Received: from zlp27130.vci.att.com (zlp27130.vci.att.com [135.66.87.38]) by mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor); Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:28:54 GMT
Received: from zlp27130.vci.att.com (zlp27130.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp27130.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 76D9840006BE; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:28:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUBAD.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.9.129.148]) by zlp27130.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 5D32D4000688; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:28:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRCD.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.4.126]) by MISOUT7MSGHUBAD.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.9.129.148]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 07:28:54 -0500
From: "UTTARO, JAMES" <ju1738@att.com>
To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>, Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com>
CC: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, rtgwg <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?
Thread-Topic: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?
Thread-Index: AQHTeQpxL62Qror8QkyB91Q7VFl5xaNMaNWA///A6BA=
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:28:53 +0000
Message-ID: <B17A6910EEDD1F45980687268941550F366EE5D4@MISOUT7MSGUSRCD.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <AM4PR0401MB2241817BD0EEEE79B32C8CD2BD0F0@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <51b495e6-ee1d-4224-6c7c-dec0f8248cc9@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <51b495e6-ee1d-4224-6c7c-dec0f8248cc9@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.10.228.60]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-12-20_06:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1712200182
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/FLRcwtYJaQKJ6dV2Yxm9CzpBtwc>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:29:24 -0000
+1 When we envisioned EVPN we first wrote an informational draft describing the requirements.. This provided the needed structure to have a conversation about the specification. Jim Uttaro -----Original Message----- From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Wilton Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 6:13 AM To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com> Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>; rtgwg <rtgwg@ietf.org> Subject: Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? Hi Khaled, As a relative newcomer to IETF, I can perhaps give two (hopefully positive) suggestions (sorry, none of which is technical): (1) From taking a very quick look at your drafts, it may be helpful to have three sections at the top of the drafts that answer these 3 questions (before you describe the new protocols): i) What is the problem that the draft is solving? ii) Why the problem cannot be cleanly solved with existing protocols/technology (which would normally be much cheaper than designing a new protocol)? iii) How does the new protocol/technology solves the problem? I.e. I think that you need to first convince the community that there is a problem to be solved, before they will invest their time looking at a solution. (2) In my brief experience, it is as important to build consensus, as it is to write good clear drafts. E.g. attend IETF, meet the key folks in the WGs (e.g. WG chairs and the main/frequent presenters in the WGs), present your ideas (but again, for a presentation, I would focus on just the 3 questions above), try and get other individuals in different companies/organizations that align with your approach (and who would be willing to put their name on your draft(s)). If you have vendors implementing these protocols, and ISPs deploying them, then that is also a big help. If you can show that you have a deep technical understanding of the existing protocols that you intend to replace, along with any limitations that they have, then that will also help. But at the moment, from a very quick look at your drafts, it is unclear to me why we need another new version of the IP protocol, need to replace BGP with a new EGP and design a new IGP. I suspect that the cost to the industry to develop, standardize, and roll out these new protocols (including new forwarding ASICs, etc) would end up being in the billions of dollars. So I'm afraid that you need to find an extremely compelling reason as to why this is required, and hence why folk should invest their limited time in these protocols. I hope that this feedback is helpful. Kind regards, Rob On 19/12/2017 20:46, Khaled Omar wrote: > Hi all, > > I noticed that the IETF participants gives only negative comments regarding the submitted IDs, that is good in some cases if it is true, but to ignore the positive side and the added values on every draft is something that should be changed, I always aim to find a true technical discussion on the mailing list to add something new or to correct something wrong with confidence. > > It's been long time on the rtgwg mailing list and didn't have any technical discussion or comments for KRP and NEP or even an official review. > > I believe that the IETF participants can show alot from their expertise to add, modify, or delete something from an existing draft. > > Of course there are all kind of people at the IETF and some of them may be interested and can make a decision. > > Thanks, > > Khaled > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > rtgwg@ietf.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_rtgwg&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=s7ZzB4JbPv3nYuoSx5Gy8Q&m=vyGkWWw2N1w2deXQ5Gi_J6YL7zA7b6XzL8dVqFlj6gQ&s=fh3wUVEt7FzuLCmP8uRfR52sNT50M2gMQ1-oOCiaIbg&e= > . > _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_rtgwg&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=s7ZzB4JbPv3nYuoSx5Gy8Q&m=vyGkWWw2N1w2deXQ5Gi_J6YL7zA7b6XzL8dVqFlj6gQ&s=fh3wUVEt7FzuLCmP8uRfR52sNT50M2gMQ1-oOCiaIbg&e=
- When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? Khaled Omar
- Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? Khaled Omar
- Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? Khaled Omar
- Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? Robert Wilton
- Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? Christer Holmberg
- Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? Khaled Omar
- RE: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? UTTARO, JAMES
- Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? Robert Wilton
- RE: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? Khaled Omar
- RE: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? Andrew Allen
- RE: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? Khaled Omar
- RE: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? Andrew Allen
- RE: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? Khaled Omar
- Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? Ted Lemon
- RE: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? Khaled Omar
- Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? Dick Franks
- Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? Ted Lemon
- RE: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? Khaled Omar
- Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? John C Klensin
- Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? Christopher Morrow
- RE: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? Khaled Omar
- Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? Christopher Morrow
- RE: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? Khaled Omar
- Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? Alexander Vainshtein