Hi Tony, Les, Tom,
When the WG was focused on this problem space, there was a lot of good work
done by the authors, as well as, a lot of WG energy. We had general consensus
on a solution that supported both distributed and centralized flooding
algorithms. There was also prototyping and implementation done in IS-IS by
multiple parties and codepoints were allocated through the early allocation
process.
At this point, it seems the energy has waned. In my opinion, this draft
represents a fairly significant protocol enhancement and it wouldn't make sense
to publish a "Standards Track" without more support and implementation
momentum. Additionally, while prototyping and implementation has been done for
IS-IS, none of this has been done for OSPF (at least not to my knowledge).
Hence, if we are going to move forward, it seems that the "Experimental" is the
right document status. "Historic" wouldn't be the right status unless we were
going for a short draft that just reserved the early allocation code points.
Thanks,
Acee
On 6/13/22, 2:12 PM, "Lsr on behalf of Tony Li" <lsr-boun...@ietf.org on
behalf of tony...@tony.li> wrote:
Les,
The market looked at the technology and decided that it was not interested.
If that’s not the definition of ‘obsolete’, I don’t know what is.
Tony
> On Jun 13, 2022, at 10:27 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
<ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Tony -
>
> "Historic" is for
>
> " A specification that has been superseded by a more recent
> specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete..."
>
> Hard to see how that applies here.
>
> Although I appreciate Tom's concern, the fact that we may not be clear on
how to transition from Experimental to Standard (for example) seems to me to be
a problem to be solved outside of the context of this specific draft - not
something that should prevent us from using Experimental.
>
> In regards to the state of the draft, here is my summary:
>
> 1)There are multiple implementations of the draft
> 2)I am not aware that interoperability of the implementations has been
demonstrated
> 3)To the extent that interoperability could be demonstrated, I think only
centralized mode could be validated at this time
> 4)Interoperability of distributed mode requires standardization of one or
more algorithms - which means the drafts defining those algorithms first have
to progress
>
> To me, that makes "Experimental" the right track as further work is
required before we can say that all aspects of the draft are mature enough to
consider Standards track.
>
> Les
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Tony Li
>> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 10:12 AM
>> To: tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com>
>> Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; lsr@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs -
draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-
>> flooding
>>
>>
>> Tom,
>>
>> In this particular case, I believe the choices are Experimental or
Historic. I’m
>> fine with either.
>>
>> T
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 13, 2022, at 8:43 AM, tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)
>> <acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>
>>> Sent: 10 June 2022 15:10
>>>
>>> Initially, there was a lot interest and energy in reducing the flooding
>> overhead in dense drafts. Now, it seems the interest and energy has
waned.
>> IMO, this draft contains some very valuable extensions to the IGPs. I
>> discussed this with the editors and one suggestion was to go ahead and
>> publish the draft as “Experimental”. However, before doing this I’d like
to get
>> the WG’s opinion on making it experimental rather standards track.
>> Additionally, I know there were some prototype implementations. Have any
>> of those been productized?
>>>
>>> <tp>
>>> The trouble with experimental is what happens next? Does it stay
>> experimental for ever or is there some assessment at some point when it
>> becomes Standards Track? What are the criteria? I am not aware of an
RFC
>> describing such a process and the IPPM WG seemed uncertain what to do
>> with RFC8321 and RFC8889 when such an issue arose.
>>>
>>> The shepherd report for 8321 said
>>> 'the measurement utility of this extension still is to be demonstrated
at a
>> variety of scales
>>> in a plurality of network conditions'
>>> as the justification for experimental but did not state how that might
later
>> be demonstrated.
>>>
>>> Tom Petch
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Acee
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
