Re: [Lsr] IPR Poll for "IS-IS Optimal Distributed Flooding for Dense Topologies" - draft-white-lsr-distoptflood-03
I am not aware of any IPR other than the one declared by Juniper. Rgds Shraddha Juniper Business Use Only From: Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2022 1:26 AM To: Antoni Przygienda ; Shraddha Hegde ; Russ White Cc: lsr@ietf.org Subject: IPR Poll for "IS-IS Optimal Distributed Flooding for Dense Topologies" - draft-white-lsr-distoptflood-03 [External Email. Be cautious of content] Authors, Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-white-lsr-distoptflood-03.txt? The following IPR declarations have been disclosed: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-white-lsr-distoptflood If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this email regardless of whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. *The response needs to be sent to the LSR WG mailing list.* The document will not advance to the next stage until a response has been received from each author and contributor. If you are on the LSR WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. Thanks, Acee ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
[Lsr] Questions on draft-white-lsr-distoptflood
Draft authors - The WG adoption call reminded me that I had some questions following the presentation of this draft at IETF 114 which we decided to "take to the list" - but we/I never did. Looking at the minutes, there was this exchange: Les: I'm not convinced that you don't need to advertise whether a node needs support this. If not, why not define this as an algorithm and use the dynamic flooding? Tony P:First bring me a case why we need to signal this. Les: If I'm not going to flood and I'm expecting someone else to flood, and I don't know whether we're in sync. Tony: Think it through, the mix with old nodes just fine. The old guy still do the full flooding and that's fine. Les: You use the term up-to-date PSNP, I have no idea how you determine whether the PSNP is "up-to-date"? unlike CSNP, PSNP doesn't have the info. Tony: You have to list all those things. Les: Let's take it to the list. Question #1: Why not define this as an algorithm and use draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding (in distributed mode)? This question is of significance both from a correctness standpoint and what track (Informational or Standard) the draft should target. Tony P's reply above suggests this isn't needed - but I don't think this is true. The draft itself says in Section 2.1: Once this flooding group is determined, the members of the flooding group will each (independently) choose which of the members should re-flood the received information. Each member of the flooding group calculates this independently of all the other members, but a common hash MUST be used across a set of shared variables so each member of the group comes to the same conclusion. If a "common hash MUST be used across a set of shared variables" (and I agree that it MUST) then all nodes which support the optimization MUST agree to use the same algorithm. Given that there are likely many hash algorithms which could be used, some way to signal the algorithm in use seems to be required. By publishing a given algorithm(including the hash) and having it assigned an identifier in the registry defined in https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-11.html#section-7.3 - and using the Area Leader logic defined in the same draft, consistency is achieved. Without that, I don't think this is guaranteed to work. Note the issue here has nothing to do with legacy nodes - I agree with Tony P's comment above that legacy nodes do not present a problem - they just limit the benefits. Question #2: Please define and demonstrate how "up-to-date PSNPs" work to recover from flooding failures. We know that periodic CSNPs robustly address this issue - and their use has been recommended for flooding reduction solutions over the years. Please more completely define "up-to-date PSNPs" and spend some time demonstrating how they are guaranteed to work - and consider in that discussion that transmission of SNPs of either type is not 100% reliable. Thanx. Les ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
[Lsr] The LSR WG has placed draft-white-lsr-distoptflood in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
The LSR WG has placed draft-white-lsr-distoptflood in state Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Acee Lindem) The document is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-white-lsr-distoptflood/ ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
[Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Optimal Distributed Flooding for Dense Topologies" - draft-white-lsr-distoptflood-03
LSR WG, This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-white-lsr-distoptflood/ The draft would be adopted on the Informational or Experimental track. Please indicate your support or objection by December 7th, 2022. Also indicate whether you believe it should be Informational or Experimental track. Thanks, Acee ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
[Lsr] IPR Poll for "IS-IS Optimal Distributed Flooding for Dense Topologies" - draft-white-lsr-distoptflood-03
Authors, Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-white-lsr-distoptflood-03.txt? The following IPR declarations have been disclosed: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-white-lsr-distoptflood If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this email regardless of whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. *The response needs to be sent to the LSR WG mailing list.* The document will not advance to the next stage until a response has been received from each author and contributor. If you are on the LSR WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. Thanks, Acee ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
