On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 11:06 AM Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>
wrote:

> Hi, Christian:
>
> Based on your information, it is more fair to adopt these two drafts as WG
> documents at the same time. The reasons are the followings:
> 1. The centralized and distributed modes don’t conflict with each other.
> Anyone can contribute their thoughts on them at their interests.
>

I am not interested in two modes only if it is proved that they don't
conflict, I think two modes can cause problems.


> 2. They are both aiming to solve the same problem, which can give the
> operators more choices once they have been standardized.
>

I am interested to adopt different works/drafts, not similar solving same
problem within same WG, we need to work as a team and separate work. We can
make two drafts merged into one, but IMHO having many authors working on
two similar work is not good practice/process or not good adoption.

3. The technique disputes between these two drafts are undergoing on the
> mailing list. If they are not well solved, we still need to discuss them
> after the adoption. It’s too hurry to make the adoption conclusion at
> current time.
>

Why we adopt if they are not well solved into one draft, having two not
solved is worst than having only one, even in discussions in IETF, it is
very very difficult to discuss with authors of an adopted draft, it is
easier to discuss and change non adopted drafts. If I was  IETF WG chair I
will delay adoptions until we get authors to update their work and making
things clear to be well solved before WG adoptions.

> 在 2019年2月1日,20:25,Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> 写道:
>
>
> 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 can create big debates and many discussions after adoption. Best way
to discuss with-saving times is between authors and WG before adoptions
especially when we have many similar solution-drafts
..

> >
> > - 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?
>

I think it is problem if we adopt without clear discussed-objectives of
each draft/author-team under investigation.

AB

>
>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to