While I never concluded the discussion (until now), but there is very little support for the requirement from operators. The flooding reflector draft did have the most support with support from one operator who was not a co-author on the draft. We could move these presentations to the second session and the flood parameters to the first session. However, given the paucity of support, I think the direction on flooding parameters is much more pressing and deserves more time. At the same time, I don’t see a problem with updates on the drafts as long as the drafts themselves have been updated.
Thanks, Acee From: Tony Przygienda <tonysi...@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 8:58 PM To: Alvaro Retana <alvaro.ret...@futurewei.com> Cc: "lsr-cha...@ietf.org" <lsr-cha...@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigour...@nokia.com>, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen...@futurewei.com>, Chris Bowers <cbow...@juniper.net> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Agenda Posted Re: Link State Routing (lsr) WG Virtual Meeting: 2020-04-02 Resent-From: <alias-boun...@ietf.org> Resent-To: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com>, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>, Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> Resent-Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 8:58 PM any chance people can post invite.ics I cn import into my agenda? it's really tedious with the timezones & every group announcing the time in different way ;-) Having said that, if we present this topic we could plug in draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection update preso in case Chris wants to do it (for me it's 6am in the morning so I pass). We had an update with readability comments and also some procedure/format clarifications. Yes, I think on the list there were voices supporting work in this area & backing this draft. From our side we see that it 1. works & 2. seems to solve a problem for several customers within the parameters they set. --- tony On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 3:15 PM Alvaro Retana <alvaro.ret...@futurewei.com<mailto:alvaro.ret...@futurewei.com>> wrote: On March 24, 2020 at 1:42:29 PM, Yingzhen Qu wrote: [Speaking as a WG participant.] > Now we have two interim sessions scheduled, please find updated agenda here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2020-lsr-01/materials/agenda-interim-2020-lsr-01-lsr-01.html > > If there is any question, please let us know. Dear Chairs: Hi! I have a question, perhaps an early agenda bash. The agenda includes presentations of the Area Proxy/TTZ drafts [*]. Acee had sent a message to the WG "asking whether there is a really a strong requirement to advance one or more of these documents" [1]. I saw a couple of replies on the list supporting this type of work, but I didn't see a discussion related to what specific requirements/issues/"places in the network" should be addressed. What was the conclusion of the thread? Are we ready to start/continue discussing the drafts? Thanks! Alvaro. [*] Disclaimer: I am an author on the TTZ draft -- cc'ing Martin just in case an AD is needed at this early stage. [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/Dc1YZd6KgKrwx3ooqLcdW3C6qPY/ _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
