Hi Aijun!

(With some delay) I wanted to acknowledge receipt of your appeal.  It was 
posted at https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iesg/appeals/artifact/138 last 
week.

Regards,
Roman Danyliw
(as Chair, for the IESG)

From: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> 
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 4:02 AM
To: 'The IESG' <i...@ietf.org>
Cc: 'lsr' <lsr@ietf.org>; 'rtg-ads' <rtg-...@ietf.org>
Subject: Appeal to the forwarding of draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce

Hi, IESG:

Again, the LSR WG tries to forward one problematic document.
I am contacting you to formally appeal the forwarding of this document (I am 
cc'ing the LSR WG/Routing ADs for the sake of transparency and openness).

• Appellants:
Aijun Wang  mailto:wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn

• Description of the Disputes
 Draft [1] passed the WGLC, with the unsolved deficiency designs.

  I have summarized the remaining issues in document [2], which describes in 
detail the following aspects:
a)      The proposal doesn’t work even in simple scenario.(section 2 of [2])
b)      The proposal is based on one flawed feature(section 3 of [2])
c)      No explicit UPA withdrawn signal(section 4 of [2])

  The related discussions for the above issues are here:
 Issue a), the author admits they needs to update the corresponding 
RFCs(although no any description to propose how to update), but it is still 
problematic. [3]
 Issue b), the author hasn’t answered the controversy scenario clearly until 
now [4]
  Issue c), current proposal can’t distinguish the two cases that lead to the 
end of UPA advertisement. [5]

 The responses from our AD [6], make some progress----I removed the unimportant 
issues in this appeal to IESG---but doesn’t address the above technical issues

  This is another example, that the proposal is implementable but can’t be 
deployed in operator’s network.

• Requested Actions
1)      Please let the authors, or any other experts that support to forward 
this document answer the above three issues.
2)      If they can’t be solved, please abandon this document[1].
3)      It is necessary to let the experts from the operators, to add/update 
the administration of the LSR WG, to gauge and raise the bar of the document 
output from the LSR WG.


[1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce/
[2]: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-reasons-of-abandon-upa-proposal/
[3]: Even updating the related RFC, the problem can’t be solved: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/v_RbVRf5sXwqhYnik2Kmr_5qu_8/
[4]: LSInfinity feature within OSPF is flawed: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/C0_vMZmk0e9uzEWayRYiIakQXtc/
[5]: Explicit Withdrawn is necessary: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/Ztpgb_DMYi2hwjDi4DxFfG1kbx4/
[6]: AD’s responses doesn’t address the remaining technical issues: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/WnRKUKOFIKP4tuHc3mORqLLs-KU/


Best Regards

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org

Reply via email to