Aijun Wang <[email protected]> writes:
Hi, Chris: If so, let’s adopt them directly then, why seek the opinions from the WG?
This is a valid point. I will consult with Acee and John, perhaps doing an adoption call was unneeded, and they should be considered adopted already as they are only clarification changes to work this group has already published. Thanks, Chris.
I would like to illustrate my opinions again: Application specific attributes just one small part of the application based solution, there are other issues needed to be considered and solved. And I think the alternative systematic solution will obsolete RFC8919 and RFC8920 together. The bis draft are just repeating its precedent, and will be replaced also accordingly, unless it solves the issues that I mentioned. Aijun Wang China TelecomOn Aug 9, 2022, at 21:50, Christian Hopps <[email protected]> wrote: We were asked by the AD to process these clarifications using bis drafts, rather than errata. That is what this is. There should be no controversy here. Let's not create any, please. Thanks, Chris. Aijun Wang <[email protected]> writes:Hi, Acee, Peter: If there is no significant updates for these two RFCs, I recommend we delay the obsolete of them, also the adoption call for these two bis drafts. What we should do is to find other more scalable, extensible and systematic approaches for the application specified advertisements. For example, for the multiple application scenarios, is it enough just define the application specified attributes? From my understandings, different applications may build different LSDBs, run different SPF algorithm, update at different frequencies, forming different forwarding tables etc. It is necessary to divide/group all the above items based on application, not just the attributes. Aijun Wang China TelecomOn Aug 9, 2022, at 18:31, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote:Hi Aijun, And the BIS changes are more clarifications than changes to the existing RFC 8919 and RFC 8920 RFCs. Thanks, Acee On 8/9/22, 5:57 AM, "Peter Psenak" <[email protected]> wrote: Aijun,On 09/08/2022 05:35, Aijun Wang wrote: Hi, I am wondering why we are so hurry to obsolete RFC8919, given that only the minor parts are updated (mainly the zero length SABM/UABM, and other interoperability issues). There may be other methods to advertise the application specific attributes.From my POV, the rules, implementation of ASLA are still complex, thedeployment of them are challenging. Is there any real deployment for RFC8919 until now?sure there are deployments of it. Flex-algo is built around RFC8919, so any network where flex-algo is used with ISIS is using RFC8919. PeterBest Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Christian Hopps Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 6:17 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc8919bis-02 Hi Folks, This begins a 2 week WG Adoption Call for the following draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc8919bis/ Please indicate your support or objections by August 22nd, 2022. Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any IPR that applies to these drafts. Thanks, Chris. _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr[2. application/octet-stream; signature.asc]...
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
