Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" - draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00

[Acee Lindem (acee)]

The WG adoption call has completed with considerable support. Please republish 
as a WG document: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00.txt.

With respect to a publication track, most who had an opinion favored 
“Experimental”, so that is the consensus.

Thanks,
Acee

From: Lsr  on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" 

Date: Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9:12 AM
To: "lsr@ietf.org" 
Subject: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" - 
draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00

We indicated the intent to adopt of 
draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00 as an LSR WG document at the 
IETF 112 LSR WG meeting.
We are now confirming WG consensus on this action. Please indicate your support 
or objection on this list by 12:00 AM UTC on December 7th, 2021.

Another question that came to light is whether the document should be standards 
track or experimental. If you have an opinion on this matter, please chime in 
along with your arguments for one track or the other. We probably won’t make a 
final decision on this now but let’s get the discussion started.

Here is a link for your convenience:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding/

Thanks,
Acee
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" - draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00

[Ketan Talaulikar]

Hi All,

Support adoption of this document with a preference for the Experimental
track at this juncture.

Thanks,
Ketan


On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 7:42 PM Acee Lindem (acee)  wrote:

> We indicated the intent to adopt of
> draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00 as an LSR WG document at
> the IETF 112 LSR WG meeting.
>
> We are now confirming WG consensus on this action. Please indicate your
> support or objection on this list by 12:00 AM UTC on December 7th, 2021.
>
>
>
> Another question that came to light is whether the document should be
> standards track or experimental. If you have an opinion on this matter,
> please chime in along with your arguments for one track or the other. We
> probably won’t make a final decision on this now but let’s get the
> discussion started.
>
>
>
> Here is a link for your convenience:
>
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding/
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
> ___
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" - draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00

[Shraddha Hegde]

I support the adoption of this work.

I would prefer this to be an experimental track document as the deployment 
experiences are expected to
provide a lot of insight and changes to the algorithms being proposed in the 
document.

I have below comments on the document


  1.  Section 4.6 talks about flooding parameter values accounting for the 
number of adjacencies on LAN interface. I think that the flooding parameters  
should account for total number of ISIS adjacencies on the device as well due 
to the common queues/buffers shared by all adjacencies. This is applicable to 
all the flooding enhancements where receiver is advertising the flooding 
parameters. I think this aspect deserves its own section in the document.





Rgds

Shraddha



Juniper Business Use Only
From: Lsr  On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 9:57 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" - 
draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Speaking as WG member:

I support WG adoption. My inclination is that this should be experimental track 
and this feel this will allow for faster publication.

Thanks,
Acee

From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
"Acee Lindem (acee)" 
mailto:acee=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>>
Date: Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9:12 AM
To: "lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>" mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>
Subject: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" - 
draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00

We indicated the intent to adopt of 
draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00 as an LSR WG document at the 
IETF 112 LSR WG meeting.
We are now confirming WG consensus on this action. Please indicate your support 
or objection on this list by 12:00 AM UTC on December 7th, 2021.

Another question that came to light is whether the document should be standards 
track or experimental. If you have an opinion on this matter, please chime in 
along with your arguments for one track or the other. We probably won't make a 
final decision on this now but let's get the discussion started.

Here is a link for your convenience:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Qcd6nJnOVl18GC5kQLb7C9sN2t3Eok-cSgnU4JjerWYA4dDK5potQBLpBhg19U9K$>

Thanks,
Acee
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" - draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00

[Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)]

As co-author, I support WG adoption.

I also strongly favor Experimental Track for this draft. This accurately 
reflects the state of this work.
One of the possible final outcomes of this work may be that multiple approaches 
work and that there is no need for standardization.  TBD
Until the need for standardization is demonstrated this work should remain 
experimental.

   Les


From: Lsr  On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 6:07 AM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" - 
draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00

We indicated the intent to adopt of 
draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00 as an LSR WG document at the 
IETF 112 LSR WG meeting.
We are now confirming WG consensus on this action. Please indicate your support 
or objection on this list by 12:00 AM UTC on December 7th, 2021.

Another question that came to light is whether the document should be standards 
track or experimental. If you have an opinion on this matter, please chime in 
along with your arguments for one track or the other. We probably won’t make a 
final decision on this now but let’s get the discussion started.

Here is a link for your convenience:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding/

Thanks,
Acee
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" - draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00

[Gyan Mishra]

I support WG adoption.

Thanks

Gyan

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 9:12 AM Acee Lindem (acee)  wrote:

> We indicated the intent to adopt of
> draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00 as an LSR WG document at
> the IETF 112 LSR WG meeting.
>
> We are now confirming WG consensus on this action. Please indicate your
> support or objection on this list by 12:00 AM UTC on December 7th, 2021.
>
>
>
> Another question that came to light is whether the document should be
> standards track or experimental. If you have an opinion on this matter,
> please chime in along with your arguments for one track or the other. We
> probably won’t make a final decision on this now but let’s get the
> discussion started.
>
>
>
> Here is a link for your convenience:
>
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding/
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
> ___
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
-- 



*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com *



*M 301 502-1347*
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" - draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00

[Hannes Gredler]

support;

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 02:06:37PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
|We indicated the intent to adopt of
|draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00 as an LSR WG document at
|the IETF 112 LSR WG meeting.
| 
|We are now confirming WG consensus on this action. Please indicate your
|support or objection on this list by 12:00 AM UTC on December 7^th, 2021.
| 
| 
| 
|Another question that came to light is whether the document should be
|standards track or experimental. If you have an opinion on this matter,
|please chime in along with your arguments for one track or the other. We
|probably won’t make a final decision on this now but let’s get the
|discussion started.
| 
| 
| 
|Here is a link for your convenience:
| 
| 
| 
|
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding/
| 
| 
| 
|Thanks,
|Acee

| ___
| Lsr mailing list
| Lsr@ietf.org
| https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" - draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00

[Acee Lindem (acee)]

Speaking as WG member:

I support WG adoption. My inclination is that this should be experimental track 
and this feel this will allow for faster publication.

Thanks,
Acee

From: Lsr  on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" 

Date: Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9:12 AM
To: "lsr@ietf.org" 
Subject: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" - 
draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00

We indicated the intent to adopt of 
draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00 as an LSR WG document at the 
IETF 112 LSR WG meeting.
We are now confirming WG consensus on this action. Please indicate your support 
or objection on this list by 12:00 AM UTC on December 7th, 2021.

Another question that came to light is whether the document should be standards 
track or experimental. If you have an opinion on this matter, please chime in 
along with your arguments for one track or the other. We probably won’t make a 
final decision on this now but let’s get the discussion started.

Here is a link for your convenience:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding/

Thanks,
Acee
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" - draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00

[bruno.decraene]

As co-author, I support adopting this draft as a WG document.

I'd favor the standard track:

  *   I'd argue that _flow_ control based on a signaled window is simple 
(compared to congestion control), old and well-known and not subject to 
experimentation any more. It has been deployed in much more diverse environment 
and larger scale, e.g. TCP and QUIC.
  *   Even if the _congestion_ control algorithm is not agreed upon, there is 
chance that explicitly signaling supported flooding parameters/capabilities 
yields to better behavior compared to guessing, and simpler deployment 
considerations compared to requiring configuration of those parameters. 
Eventually in the future, the WG would agree on a sub-set of standard track 
parameters (sub-TLV) carried in the TLV defined in this document. Having this 
document experimental would lead to a downref.

Thanks,
--Bruno




Orange Restricted
From: Lsr  On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 3:07 PM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" - 
draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00

We indicated the intent to adopt of 
draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00 as an LSR WG document at the 
IETF 112 LSR WG meeting.
We are now confirming WG consensus on this action. Please indicate your support 
or objection on this list by 12:00 AM UTC on December 7th, 2021.

Another question that came to light is whether the document should be standards 
track or experimental. If you have an opinion on this matter, please chime in 
along with your arguments for one track or the other. We probably won't make a 
final decision on this now but let's get the discussion started.

Here is a link for your convenience:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding/

Thanks,
Acee

_

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" - draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00

[Mohan Nanduri]

Support the adoption as a WG document.

Cheers,
-Mohan

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 9:12 AM Acee Lindem (acee)
 wrote:
>
> We indicated the intent to adopt of 
> draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00 as an LSR WG document at the 
> IETF 112 LSR WG meeting.
>
> We are now confirming WG consensus on this action. Please indicate your 
> support or objection on this list by 12:00 AM UTC on December 7th, 2021.
>
>
>
> Another question that came to light is whether the document should be 
> standards track or experimental. If you have an opinion on this matter, 
> please chime in along with your arguments for one track or the other. We 
> probably won’t make a final decision on this now but let’s get the discussion 
> started.
>
>
>
> Here is a link for your convenience:
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding/
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> ___
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" - draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00

[Robert Raszuk]

Support.

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 3:11 PM Acee Lindem (acee)  wrote:

> We indicated the intent to adopt of
> draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00 as an LSR WG document at
> the IETF 112 LSR WG meeting.
>
> We are now confirming WG consensus on this action. Please indicate your
> support or objection on this list by 12:00 AM UTC on December 7th, 2021.
>
>
>
> Another question that came to light is whether the document should be
> standards track or experimental. If you have an opinion on this matter,
> please chime in along with your arguments for one track or the other. We
> probably won’t make a final decision on this now but let’s get the
> discussion started.
>
>
>
> Here is a link for your convenience:
>
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding/
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
> ___
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" - draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00

[Tony Przygienda]

Yes, support, experimental. It would be beneficial for the authors taking
IPR here to explain in few words what we're protecting here that is not
covered by TCP & million other congestion things out there already

-- tony

On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 4:20 AM Jeff Tantsura 
wrote:

> Acee,
>
> I support the adoption, and would like to thank the authors for the great
> work.
> At this point in time, it feels like experimental track is more suitable.
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff
>
>
>
> On Nov 22, 2021, at 6:06 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <
> acee=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> We indicated the intent to adopt of
> draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00 as an LSR WG document at
> the IETF 112 LSR WG meeting.
> We are now confirming WG consensus on this action. Please indicate your
> support or objection on this list by 12:00 AM UTC on December 7th, 2021.
>
> Another question that came to light is whether the document should be
> standards track or experimental. If you have an opinion on this matter,
> please chime in along with your arguments for one track or the other. We
> probably won’t make a final decision on this now but let’s get the
> discussion started.
>
> Here is a link for your convenience:
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding/
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
> ___
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
>
> ___
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
> ___
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" - draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00

[Jeff Tantsura]

Acee,

I support the adoption, and would like to thank the authors for the great work.
At this point in time, it feels like experimental track is more suitable.

Cheers,
Jeff

> 
> 
>> On Nov 22, 2021, at 6:06 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> We indicated the intent to adopt of 
>> draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00 as an LSR WG document at 
>> the IETF 112 LSR WG meeting.
>> We are now confirming WG consensus on this action. Please indicate your 
>> support or objection on this list by 12:00 AM UTC on December 7th, 2021.
>>  
>> Another question that came to light is whether the document should be 
>> standards track or experimental. If you have an opinion on this matter, 
>> please chime in along with your arguments for one track or the other. We 
>> probably won’t make a final decision on this now but let’s get the 
>> discussion started.
>>  
>> Here is a link for your convenience:
>>  
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding/
>>  
>> Thanks,
>> Acee 
>> ___
>> Lsr mailing list
>> Lsr@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> 
> ___
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" - draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00

[Tony Li]

As co-author, I support adopting this draft as a WG document.

I favor the experimental track for this. We do not yet agree as to what the 
content will be. I reserve the right to change my opinion should circumstances 
change.

T


> On Nov 22, 2021, at 6:06 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) 
>  wrote:
> 
> We indicated the intent to adopt of 
> draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00 as an LSR WG document at the 
> IETF 112 LSR WG meeting.
> We are now confirming WG consensus on this action. Please indicate your 
> support or objection on this list by 12:00 AM UTC on December 7th, 2021.
>  
> Another question that came to light is whether the document should be 
> standards track or experimental. If you have an opinion on this matter, 
> please chime in along with your arguments for one track or the other. We 
> probably won’t make a final decision on this now but let’s get the discussion 
> started.
>  
> Here is a link for your convenience:
>  
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding/
>  
> 
>  
> Thanks,
> Acee 
> ___
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr 
> 
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

[Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" - draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00

[Acee Lindem (acee)]

We indicated the intent to adopt of 
draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00 as an LSR WG document at the 
IETF 112 LSR WG meeting.
We are now confirming WG consensus on this action. Please indicate your support 
or objection on this list by 12:00 AM UTC on December 7th, 2021.

Another question that came to light is whether the document should be standards 
track or experimental. If you have an opinion on this matter, please chime in 
along with your arguments for one track or the other. We probably won’t make a 
final decision on this now but let’s get the discussion started.

Here is a link for your convenience:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding/

Thanks,
Acee
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr