Hi Aijun,
[as-wg-member]: Perhaps you don't recall, but if you go review all the email threads and presentations/video you will see that I was a supporter of Huaimo's idea originally. [as-wg-member]: However, I also accepted that I was "in the rough" and the WG did not agree with using a new TLV for this problem. The WG has a different solution that you do not agree with, but that doesn't change the WG rough consensus. Thanks, Chris. Aijun Wang <[email protected]> writes:
Hi,Chris: Please elaborate clearly your technical reviews for the updates of the newly proposed Big-TLV solution. I can copy the updates again at here and state their effects clearly. (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/ dxK4Gy1WDR7QCXK6p58xgA0MdUc/ )Please give your analysis before you make any conclusions: A new version of Big-TLV document has been posted(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-isis-big-tlv), to try to give the community one general way to solve the Big TLV problem. The main changes from the previous versions are the followings: 1) Add one "Identification" field within the container TLV(type TBD1), to function as the key for any sliced TLV, and is TLV code point independent. 2) Add one "Flag" field, define currently the "F" bit to indicate whether the piece of container is the first piece(F bit is set to 1), or not (F bit is unset) 3) Put all the sliced pieces within the newly defined container TLV(type TBD1). 4) Define some rules for the "Split and Glue" procedures(may be re-optimizer later after the WG discussions) The updated version erases the necessity of defining the "key" information for every IS-IS (Possible Big) TLV code point, and also the necessity of per-TLV capability announcement. I would like to hear your detail analysis, especially as the WG chairs, for the above statements. Aijun Wang China Telecom On Oct 22, 2024, at 20:15, 【外部账号】Christian Hopps <[email protected]> wrote: Those changes don't appear to address what the WG already decided against. The view of the WG was that a new Big TLV for doing this was not going to work. Given the name of this work is Big TLV, that doesn't seem to have changed. So why should the WG be spending even more time on a solution they already discussed, debated and discarded? Thanks, Chris. [as wg chair] On Oct 22, 2024, at 06:47, Aijun Wang <[email protected]> wrote: Hi, Chris: No, we have made some significant updates. Please refer to https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/ dxK4Gy1WDR7QCXK6p58xgA0MdUc/ for more information. Aijun Wang China Telecom On Oct 22, 2024, at 17:04, 【外部账号】Christian Hopps <[email protected]> wrote: Is this the same thing that Huaimo has already presented to the WG, that the WG decided was not the way it wanted to go? Thanks, Chris. "Aijun Wang" <[email protected]> writes: Hi, Yingzhen: I would like to request 10-15minutes to make the presentation for the “IS-IS Extension for Big TLV” The related information are the followings: Draft Name: IS-IS Extension for Big TLV Link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ draft-wang-lsr-isis-big-tlv / Presenter: Aijun Wang Desired Slot Length: 10-15minutes. Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Yingzhen Qu 发送时间: 2024年10月12日 3:54 收件人: lsr <[email protected]>; lsr-chairs <[email protected]> 主题: [Lsr] IETF 121 LSR Slot Requests Hi, The draft agenda for IETF 121 has been posted: IETF 121 Meeting Agenda The LSR session is scheduled on Thursday Session I 09:30-11:30, Nov 7th, 2024. Please send slot requests to [email protected] before the end of the day Wednesday Oct 23. Please include draft name and link, presenter, desired slot length including Q&A. Thanks, Yingzhen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
