Hi Peter, My explanations/answers are in line below with prefix [HC].
-----Original Message----- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 4:58 AM To: Huaimo Chen <huaimo.c...@huawei.com>; Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>; email@example.com Subject: Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux] Hi Huaimo, On 03/02/2019 17:58 , Huaimo Chen wrote: > Hi Acee, > > > > I agree with you on keeping the signaling for two modes. The other > parts for the distributed solution need to be removed. There are no "other" parts specific for the distributed solution. [HC] Some behaviors for the distributed solution/mode are described in draft-li-dynamic-flooding. For example, there are a few of places from page 27 to 30, which define the behaviors specific for the distributed solution/mode. draft-li-dyanmic-flooding defines: 1. the signalling that is common and used by both modes 2. distribution of the flooding-topology, which is specific to centralized mode 3. common behavior of the nodes that support the extension, which is independent of the mode of operation. [HC] In addition to these, draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction defines more, including concrete protections, operations, and algorithms for computing a flooding topology. Best Regards, Huaimo thanks, Peter > > > > Best Regards, > > Huaimo > > *From:* Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, February 3, 2019 11:45 AM > *To:* Huaimo Chen <huaimo.c...@huawei.com>; Christian Hopps > <cho...@chopps.org>; firstname.lastname@example.org > *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft > Redux] > > > > Hi Huaimo, > > > > See inline. > > > > *From: *Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on > behalf of Huaimo Chen <huaimo.c...@huawei.com > <mailto:huaimo.c...@huawei.com>> > *Date: *Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 12:27 AM > *To: *Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org <mailto:cho...@chopps.org>>, > "email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>" <email@example.com > <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> > *Subject: *Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft > Redux] > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > We proposed the distributed solution first, and Tony proposed the > centralized solution first. Tony added the distributed solution > (except for the algorithms to compute flooding topology) into his > draft. And then we added the centralized solution into our draft. The > latest versions of the two drafts have largely converged at least at > the high level to a solution for solving the same problem. > > > > Our draft has multiple key technical advantages over Tony's draft as > we described in our email to the LSR list, which are summarized below: > > 1. It uses a fraction of flooding resource (i.e., it is multiple > times more efficient in flooding topology encoding); > > 2. It provides fault tolerance to multiple failures, minimizing > impact on network convergence, thus minimizing traffic lose; and > > 3. It is simpler and needs less processing time (i.e., faster and > more efficient) in multiple scenarios. > > Based on the technical merits, our draft should be moved forward. > However, Chair proposed to move Tony's draft forward and have us work > on a distributed algorithm as we started with. > > > > I think that the distributed solution in Tony's draft needs to be > removed and they work on the centralized solution. We remove the > centralized solution from our draft and work on the distributed solution. > > > > I'm against "cutting the baby in half" given that the signaling for > the distributed solution is a proper subset of what is required for > the centralized solution. It is undesirable to have different > signaling for the two modes. For the distributed algorithm you are > proposing, do see problems with the signaling? > > > > Thanks, > > Acee > > > > Best Regards, > > Huaimo > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christian Hopps > > Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 7:26 AM > > To: email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> > > Cc: cho...@chopps.org <mailto:cho...@chopps.org> > > Subject: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux] > > > > > > 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 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? > > > > Thanks, > > Chris & Acee. > > LSR Chairs. > > > > Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org <mailto:cho...@chopps.org>> writes: > > > >> We've had the authors of the individual conflicting drafts take a >> shot > at merging their work. > >> > >> This has failed. > >> > >> Here is the full history (which I also summarized during IETF103 as > well). I will send a second email discussing this. > >> > >> - Jan 2, 2018 Publication: draft-li-dynamic-flooding and > drfat-li-dynamic-flooding-isis > >> published centralized solution. > >> > >> - Mar 5, 2018 Publication: draft-cc-isis-flooding-reduction and > draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction > >> published distributed solution. > >> - mention of centralized solution asserting it is not good choice. > >> > >> - IETF 101 (Mar 2018) > >> - Video: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHmT4ytMn4w&list=PLC86T-6ZTP5j_HaBNdfP > bgxGIp22cnaWS > >> - Minutes: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/minutes-101-lsr-00 > >> - draft-li-dynamic-flooding-02 presented (1 author). at IETF 101 > >> - Generally well received. > >> - draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-00 (4 authors) presented. > >> - Serious problems immediately found during presentation -- not > fully baked. > >> > >> - Mar 18, 2018 draft-li-dynamic-flooding-03 published (1 author) > >> - Mar 27, 2018 draft-li-dynamic-flooding-04 published (1 author) > >> - Apr 20, 2018 draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-01 revised > >> - Jun 28, 2018 draft-li-dynamic-flooding-05 published (2 authors) > >> - *SMALL CHANGE TO SUPPORT DISTRIBUTED ALGORITHM*. > >> - Does not specify distributed algorithm only how to indicate one >> in > use, small change. > >> > >> - Jul 2, 2018 draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-02 published > >> > >> - IETF 102 (Jul 14, 2018) > >> - draft-li-dynamic-flooding-05 presented. > >> - draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-02 presented. > >> > >> - Sep 12, 2018 draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-03 (4 authors) > >> - *LARGE CHANGE ADDS NEW CENTRALIZED SOLUTION*. > >> > >> - Sep 20, 2018 draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-04 (4 authors) > >> > >> - Oct 21, 2018 draft-li-lsr-dynamic-flooding-00 and -01 (5 authors) > >> > >> - IETF 103 (Nov 3, 2018) > >> > >> - Chairs give direction > >> > >> - draft-li-lsr-dynamic-flooding-05 having come first, being well > written and not > >> specifying a distributed algorithm (merely allowing for one) is > the correct vehicle > >> to adopt as a base document. > >> > >> - Distributed algorithm work (the original basis for > draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction) > >> should continue as a separate document form the base which >> would > thus we have no > >> conflicts. > >> > >> - In the meantime the authors try and merge work, this fails. > >> > >> - Dec 3, 2018 draft-li-lsr-dynamic-flooding-02 (7 authors) > >> > >> - Dec 10, 2018 draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-00 (4 authors) > >> > >> - Jan 7, 2019 draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-01 (8 authors) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr