Speaking as a WG member, 

I just re-read section 6.7 and all the actions for distributed computation are 
pretty much intuitive corollaries for the actions for the centralized solution. 
I see no real reason to remove these. However, there is nothing to prevent 
improvements to be proposed in an alternate draft. 

Thanks,
Acee

´╗┐On 2/14/19, 8:58 AM, "John E Drake" <jdr...@juniper.net> wrote:

    Hi,
    
    I completely agree with Peter.
    
    Yours Irrespectively,
    
    John
    
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
    > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2019 2:30 AM
    > To: Huaimo Chen <huaimo.c...@huawei.com>; Acee Lindem (acee)
    > <a...@cisco.com>; Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>; lsr@ietf.org
    > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
    > 
    > Hi Huaimo,
    > 
    > On 13/02/2019 22:50 , Huaimo Chen wrote:
    > > 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>; lsr@ietf.org
    > > 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.
    > 
    > optimized flooding is not only about algorithm to calculate the flooding
    > topology and the way it is distributed/computed. It is also about local 
rules to
    > make sure the flooding remains consistent. These are _independent_ of
    > centralized/distributed modes. And it make no sense to specify these 
rules in
    > two drafts.
    > >
    > > 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.
    > 
    > I strongly disagree. The fact that we say in centralized mode area leader
    > recomputes and in distributed mode all nodes recompute make no difference 
in
    > behavior.
    > 
    > thanks,
    > Peter
    > 
    > >
    > > 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>; lsr@ietf.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>>,
    > >> "lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>" <lsr@ietf.org
    > >> <mailto:lsr@ietf.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: lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_
    > >> watch-3Fv-3DqHmT4ytMn4w-26list-3DPLC86T-2D6ZTP5j-
    > 5FHaBNdfP&d=DwICAg&c
    > >> =HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-
    > h5LGhEW
    > >> H-
    > s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=kykK2jUejhafPHOrWXu0yvNk7XsXUoDYsWjFoFGHeT
    > g&s
    > >> =cBWxI4Hu1GZNWxuUZRREnZNg-cZZYbdrLHRXKsUama4&e=
    > >> bgxGIp22cnaWS
    > >>
    > >>>   - Minutes:
    > >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf
    > >> .org_meeting_101_materials_minutes-2D101-2Dlsr-
    > 2D00&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh
    > >> 63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-
    > s_xXX
    > >>
    > up3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=kykK2jUejhafPHOrWXu0yvNk7XsXUoDYsWjFoFGHeTg&s=
    > 1UTDcj
    > >> zO1b-Ful7k87ItzHcvqzRveIK_m_FI9eIDLFs&e=
    > >>
    > >>>   - 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mai
    > >> lman_listinfo_lsr&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
    > ndb3voDTXcWz
    > >> oCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-
    > s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=kykK2jUejhafPHOrW
    > >>
    > Xu0yvNk7XsXUoDYsWjFoFGHeTg&s=BTZ1l1KpTxr_U3n0pZnknvuPBGxRM9ul08q
    > CKpaE
    > >> eXk&e=
    > >>
    > >
    > > .
    > >
    > 
    > _______________________________________________
    > Lsr mailing list
    > Lsr@ietf.org
    > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
    > 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_lsr&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0
    > UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-
    > s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=kykK2jUejhafPHOrWXu0yvNk7XsXUoDYsWjFoFGHeT
    > g&s=BTZ1l1KpTxr_U3n0pZnknvuPBGxRM9ul08qCKpaEeXk&e=
    

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

Reply via email to