Hi, Gunter:
Here I request formally that AD to step in to resolve the issues that existing
in MP-TLV proposal https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv/
Along the discussions on the LSR mail list, we can know there are following
issues for the MP-TLV proposal:
1) It defines only “what constitutes a key” for two IS-IS TLVs(TLV 22 and TLV
135), there is no such information for other IS-IS TLVs, and also their
respective sub-TLVs.
2) The information about “what constitutes a key” is important for any method
that segments the packet and concatenate them together. It’s even impossible to
assure the interoperability from the implementation of different vendors when
the standard is lack of such information.
3) Current MP-TLV proposal illustrates also in its section 8.2
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-06#section-8.2)
that there are other IS-IS TLVs and their respective sub-TLVs may have value
length that exceeds 255 bytes, but the authors of this draft admitted publicly
that it is impossible to illustrate all the information about “what constitutes
a key” for all these TLVs and sub-TLVs.
Based on the above information, we can conclude that MP-TLV proposal is one
error prone, full of pitfalls solution.
I ask the AD to step in to stop to forward this proposal, for the value of IETF
community.
I ask also AD to restrain the Chair’s preference for any proposal from some
limited group, but reluctant to give chance for other new UPDATED proposals to
make presentation.
I want to point out here what the Chair’s call WG consensus often come only
from the authors of the respective document, not from the most part of LSR WG,
even there is unsolved, obvious technical issues existing.
Doing so within the LSR WG is not constructive for the discussions and the
fruitful output of LSR WG, we expect there will be necessary changes for the
administrative of LSR WG.
TWO of Chairs of LSR WG come from the same Company, I think it is not helpful
for the diversity organization principle of the IETF organization(As I known,
there is no such bias WG within IETF).
We should make some change for the administrative of LSR WG, to facilitate the
active discussions of this WG.
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
