Hi, John: Thanks for your review and comments. The use cases and original thought in this draft are different from that described in RFC7794. We have pointed out that RFC7794 has the similar extension for ISIS and indicated that the extension for ISIS can also be used in the use cases described in our draft. What’ other content do you think it is needed further? RFC 7770 solves mainly the advertising of router’s capabilities, it shouldn’t be used for transmitting the information about the prefixes.
Best Regards. Aijun Wang China Telecom > On Feb 21, 2019, at 23:41, John E Drake > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I agree with Les. I think the draft should be recast to indicate that it is > providing OSPF parity with RFC 7794. > Can’t topology discovery be done using RFC 7770? > > Yours Irrespectively, > > John > > From: Lsr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 8:22 AM > To: Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "OSPF Extension for Prefix > Originator" - draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext-01 > > To the extent that the draft defines functionality equivalent to that defined > in IS-IS RFC 7794 – specifically a means to advertise the source router-id of > a given advertisement – it defines a necessary and useful extension to the > OSPF protocol – and I support that work. > > However, in its current form the draft discusses use of this mechanism for > inter-area topology discovery. This idea is seriously flawed – as has been > discussed extensively on the WG list. > The draft also discusses uses cases related to ERLD, the direction for which > is very much uncertain at this time. > > I therefore feel that the current content of the draft is not what I would > expect to see approved by the WG as an RFC and therefore have significant > reservations about moving forward with the existing content. > > I do want to see a draft addressing the source router-id advertisement gap > move forward – and if this draft is reduced to focus on that then I can > enthusiastically support adoption – but in its current form I cannot indicate > support. > > Les > > > From: Lsr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 5:26 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "OSPF Extension for Prefix > Originator" - draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext-01 > > This begins a two week adoption poll for the subject draft. Please send your > comments to this list before 12:00 AM UTC on Thursday, February 28th, 2019. > > All authors have responded to the IPR poll and there is one > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext > It is listed multiple times but references the same CN201810650141. > > Thanks, > Acee > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
