IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Hesham ElBakoury <helbakoury@gmail.com> Wed, 03 April 2024 11:45 UTC

Return-Path: <helbakoury@gmail.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 0AA26C14F694 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 04:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 J5BN1pzGIhtl for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 04:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1030.google.com (mail-pj1-x1030.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1030]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7952BC14F68B for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 04:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1030.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2a2a3e1d4f3so253865a91.0 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Apr 2024 04:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1712144715; x=1712749515; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=IiVKvU6yx2We/o6QH43LDdwsK/R+eIYwgg/qRHhu/w0=; b=ThTcLO3ZXOy+pSpjs4uw5tG83/y7aY0hxPlQLGUd1ZDd7regmqRK3JqqHmeG648uof bfqqvwJ4Km1QfBPf6QUwOZ3c3thHH80f19iec3M6CkGwZzawRPTfV+z5A9JcW17A94Oy PDg+MabcTQmkY4ndPp+EUpJRa9yfRfYXFluKYr8sdYSlwQ/TMrIMuwLJuWFX0HvxZUSo Y4l3xxnYyU7cirmvZ8rbjH+IPNQkk5qglsJ2HUW5tJkCLSRf8uIdAEWyMhKIT6wQtpSw CO8dGrZ8aXuu8hiDeySUP0wwY081UD3XsiHEUz95kYqwffY+lgS1H+ADTHIvF8nZYbfM wdQg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1712144715; x=1712749515; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=IiVKvU6yx2We/o6QH43LDdwsK/R+eIYwgg/qRHhu/w0=; b=fVxypc5/hPG7zOC5/CPNSTCUBDUyjxezM6POrirh/P13IOyqcwgD90sieuZQFmBluM 7BwN5eD/7aQTtxf4wjjcoCnPe1gJhpRBf7eALxn2tNdxUI4zJ55X5vG0aaZ1q2ciNnCm kP0PRTEhbtgN5qxIss/gMCVV5Pjttnk/eGX0IZLxLgsoMo1ycOhXu0N7JsQWsEJQy905 j6feBu+9AArstpE+61HjLgJHZOCon44J63a7Qn+ouD6jlSqAPot2+E/iR17QHJtpU4gA Fret10wwFRc3TFGIKktcsGlgxkchyfpefWvtR7DBZGoOhzq7AbPhA5nvCgiI8n5JsN8E VJPQ==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVaZgXlduBVQbriw21sL6LaSQAMyQm8zl1Ha7ZkAXyTyehIUWoGh4U4pxC0tyqOGA9DHp7ISg74H1XYObH0XQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxOWsZCK0Sr+TnnhQaeklAyRbRdaS0ctjowobp8N67hPzIMt439 VSqmjQ4kgXPfCFUWMRKgzC9hbuW0fw9f3/4aKdZExqX8mxKtkuSgA0RJpwi3zgpDwdLpV8IFVXl 76BU8qH6UChbScQC7ujuyjkBY+58=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFGQbB/WKQEjxyZpjitLH5VvgBPkTTpgV82OmLjGFW55XLwDDrvR1peOY8ojUTkuwDhJhzxxsY3LdG69bOWXuw=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:3750:b0:2a2:b03b:58e2 with SMTP id ne16-20020a17090b375000b002a2b03b58e2mr455471pjb.15.1712144714595; Wed, 03 Apr 2024 04:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <80e2acc7d26c4a7ebf6f5a42d6cea0e3@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <80e2acc7d26c4a7ebf6f5a42d6cea0e3@huawei.com>
From: Hesham ElBakoury <helbakoury@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 04:45:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFvDQ9otjLWac=pa8xpfz12+-Xz0L5dLwHKB+xaAqq78Afg=ig@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Adoption request: draft-li-arch-sat
To: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008486af06152fc1f2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/lorGRtzyBjRVYJii96ZE8z5VFzg>
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 11:45:16 -0000

If we can't verify the routing solution from anyone, how we can proceed in
IETF?

Hesham

On Tue, Apr 2, 2024, 7:17 PM Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong=
40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> 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)
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email