IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Adoption request: draft-li-arch-sat

"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com> Wed, 03 April 2024 02:17 UTC

Return-Path: <jie.dong@huawei.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 36F8EC14F689 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 19:17:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.196
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LJBSwGu3BCpo for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 19:17:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D95A6C14F614 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 19:17:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.216]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4V8SvL0f8yz6K7Gv; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 10:12:46 +0800 (CST)
Received: from lhrpeml100001.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.160.183]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29AAD140B35; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 10:17:23 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggpemm500005.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.74) by lhrpeml100001.china.huawei.com (7.191.160.183) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.35; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 03:17:21 +0100
Received: from kwepemd100004.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.31) by dggpemm500005.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.74) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.35; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 10:17:19 +0800
Received: from kwepemd100004.china.huawei.com ([7.221.188.31]) by kwepemd100004.china.huawei.com ([7.221.188.31]) with mapi id 15.02.1258.028; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 10:17:19 +0800
From: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "stewart.bryant@gmail.com" <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Adoption request: draft-li-arch-sat
Thread-Topic: Adoption request: draft-li-arch-sat
Thread-Index: AQHahI3DPP1tIB7x7EuSoUrhGiX/VrFTyjyAgAA9VoCAAIMgAIABQCeg
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 02:17:19 +0000
Message-ID: <80e2acc7d26c4a7ebf6f5a42d6cea0e3@huawei.com>
References: <CAFvDQ9p1gZJ9oFSBvPEFK5KbTGz1-QD0BqQJy_D6Q=58w6K0pA@mail.gmail.com> <65A5C87A-7F22-4582-9492-766BCC1C74ED@gmail.com> <CAMMESszNGaoL5kdP4=fNeav=re40du-CKf7VeLW_VH+Yn-vuxQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESszNGaoL5kdP4=fNeav=re40du-CKf7VeLW_VH+Yn-vuxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.84.11.181]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_80e2acc7d26c4a7ebf6f5a42d6cea0e3huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/S_5thk6G3ByLZ7RiXcwRq8g-KJM>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 03 Apr 2024 02:17:29 -0000

Hi,

I share the concern with Alvaro and Stewart. No doubt that satellite is a hot topic, but it is not clear whether and how the solution in this document can be verified.

Another question is about the document title, it describes one specific solution for satellite routing, as mentioned by the author on IETF 119, there can be other solutions which may or may not follow this approach. Then it seems not appropriate to call this document “an architecture”.  How about renaming it as “one routing solution for satellite networks”?

Best regards,
Jie

From: rtgwg <rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 10:49 PM
To: Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Adoption request: draft-li-arch-sat

Hi!

I have the same concerns as Stewart.

We don’t have the experience or expertise to review the document, including the assumptions. This topic is interesting, but without the ability to review it properly, I don’t think this draft (or any other related work) should be adopted.

Alvaro.


On April 2, 2024 at 3:00:36 AM, Stewart Bryant (stewart.bryant@gmail.com<mailto:stewart.bryant@gmail.com>) wrote:
I support as a technical solution, but have reservations as to whether this will be deployed. Is there operator or regulator support for this approach.

Stewart

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email