Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
I agree totally with Chris on these points. Furthermore, the choices that operators will have are with the flooding algorithms. We need work on the generalized signaling in order to allow the algorithm work to proceed. Thanks, Acee On 2/4/19, 8:21 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Christian Hopps" wrote: Aijun Wang writes: > Hi, Christian: > > Based on your information, it is more fair to adopt these two drafts as WG documents at the same time. The reasons are the followings: > 1. The centralized and distributed modes don’t conflict with each other. Anyone can contribute their thoughts on them at their interests. No we do not adopt 2 documents solving the same relatively simple problem (signaling, primarily for centralized mode), we adopt one and incorporate any improvements needed, this isn't that hard a problem and we certainly don't need multiple solutions. Work on algorithms *is* a hard problem and can and should continue to be done in parallel with no conflict. > 2. They are both aiming to solve the same problem, which can give the operators more choices once they have been standardized. There's literally *no* reason to do this. We need to do our jobs as a WG and produce a single standard for signaling. > 3. The technique disputes between these two drafts are undergoing on the mailing list. If they are not well solved, we still need to discuss them after the adoption. It’s too hurry to make the adoption conclusion at current time. We've had a *YEAR* of multiple author documents, we're not hurrying at all, it's time to move forward. Thanks, Chris. > > Aijun Wang > China Telecom > >> 在 2019年2月1日，20:25，Christian Hopps 写道： >> >> >> Summary of where we are at with dynamic flooding reduction: >> >> - We have a well written original work that came first and described the problems as well as a TLVs to allow for a centralized solution (draft-li-dyanmic-flooding). We do not need to standardize the centralized algorithm. >> >> - A small change to this work allowed for distributed algorithms and for outside work on distributed algorithms to continue in parallel. >> >> - We have another original work that started primarily as a distributed algorithm >> (draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction) >> >> - Finally we also have: >> - Cross-pollination of ideas. >> - Failed attempts at merging. >> - An authors list "Arms-Race". >> >> Moving forward: >> >> - During IETF 103 I proposed we have no conflict if we: >> >> 1) adopt draft-li-lsr-dyanmic-flooding as the base WG document. >> 2) have authors of draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction work on a distributed algorithm as they started with. >> >> - Acee agreed during the meeting (as chair) that this was the best way forward. We had some agreement form the floor as well. >> >> - Any good ideas regarding the distribution of a centralized topology can be debated and added (with appropriate attribution) to the base document after we adopt one. >> >> - This is what happens when we adopt a document as WG work, we work on it. >> >> - The original authors of the distributed solution can continue to work on their distributed algorithm in a separate document which would also need standardization. >> >> Does anyone see a serious problem with this path forward? >> >> Thanks, >> Chris & Acee. >> LSR Chairs. >> >> Christian Hopps writes: >> >>> We've had the authors of the individual conflicting drafts take a shot at merging their work. >>> >>> This has failed. >>> >>> Here is the full history (which I also summarized during IETF103 as well). I will send a second email discussing this. >>> >>> - Jan 2, 2018 Publication: draft-li-dynamic-flooding and drfat-li-dynamic-flooding-isis >>> published centralized solution. >>> >>> - Mar 5, 2018 Publication: draft-cc-isis-flooding-reduction and draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction >>> published distributed solution. >>> - mention of centralized solution asserting it is not good choice. >>> >>> - IETF 101 (Mar 2018) >>> - Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHmT4ytMn4w&list=PLC86T-6ZTP5j_HaBNdfPbgxGIp22cnaWS >>> - Minutes: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/minutes-101-lsr-00 >>> - draft-li-dynamic-flooding-02 presented (1 author). at IETF 101 >>>- Generally well received. >>> - draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-00 (4 authors) presented. >>>- Serious problems immediately found during presentation -- not fully baked. >>> >>> - Mar 18, 2018 draft-li-dynamic-flooding-03 published (1 author) >>> - Mar 27, 2018 draft-li-dynamic-flooding-04 published (1 author) >>> - Apr 20, 2018 draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-01 revised >>>
Re: [Lsr] 答复: Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
In favor of moving both drafts forward. Linda Dunbar -Original Message- From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lizhenbin Sent: Monday, February 04, 2019 3:36 AM To: Christian Hopps ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: [Lsr] 答复: Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux] Hi Chris & Acee, > - Jan 2, 2018 Publication: draft-li-dynamic-flooding and > drfat-li-dynamic-flooding-isis > published centralized solution. > > - Mar 5, 2018 Publication: draft-cc-isis-flooding-reduction and > draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction > published distributed solution Thanks for your summary we know the fact that at beginning there was not any confliction between the two drafts. > - Jun 28, 2018 draft-li-dynamic-flooding-05 published (2 authors) > - *SMALL CHANGE TO SUPPORT DISTRIBUTED ALGORITHM*. > - Does not specify distributed algorithm only how to indicate one in use, > small change. I do not think it is a small change. It is to introduced the totally new solution which was already defined in the other existing draft. It is not an appropariate behavior and the root cause of the potential confliction. I also think the distributed solution includes more than the algorithms defined in the draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-00 and the overlapped signallings defined in the draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-00/draft-li-dynamic-flooding-03. Since the co-authors could not merge the draft, though the existing suggestion proposed is try to separate the two drafts, there is still overlap on the distributed solution between the two drafts which may be the source of continuous confliction in the future. In order to avoid the situation I would like to propose following suggestions: - move both the two drafts forward in parallel keeping draft-li-dynamic-flooding focus on the centralized solution and draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction on the distributed solution. - draft-li-dynamic-flooding can keep on refining the centralized solution without mentioning distibuted solutions. - draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction can keep on refining the distributed solutions. For the sigalling which can be shared by the two modes, the draft can indicate the distributed solutions reuse the signalling defined in draft-li-dynamic-flooding without defining new signalling. - both drafts change the draft names to reflect different solutions without causing confusion. Thanks & Regards, Zhenbin (Robin) 发件人: Lsr [lsr-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Christian Hopps [cho...@chopps.org] 发送时间: 2019年2月1日 20:25 收件人: lsr@ietf.org 抄送: cho...@chopps.org 主题: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux] Summary of where we are at with dynamic flooding reduction: - We have a well written original work that came first and described the problems as well as a TLVs to allow for a centralized solution (draft-li-dyanmic-flooding). We do not need to standardize the centralized algorithm. - A small change to this work allowed for distributed algorithms and for outside work on distributed algorithms to continue in parallel. - We have another original work that started primarily as a distributed algorithm (draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction) - Finally we also have: - Cross-pollination of ideas. - Failed attempts at merging. - An authors list "Arms-Race". Moving forward: - During IETF 103 I proposed we have no conflict if we: 1) adopt draft-li-lsr-dyanmic-flooding as the base WG document. 2) have authors of draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction work on a distributed algorithm as they started with. - Acee agreed during the meeting (as chair) that this was the best way forward. We had some agreement form the floor as well. - Any good ideas regarding the distribution of a centralized topology can be debated and added (with appropriate attribution) to the base document after we adopt one. - This is what happens when we adopt a document as WG work, we work on it. - The original authors of the distributed solution can continue to work on their distributed algorithm in a separate document which would also need standardization. Does anyone see a serious problem with this path forward? Thanks, Chris & Acee. LSR Chairs. Christian Hopps writes: > We've had the authors of the individual conflicting drafts take a shot at > merging their work. > >This has failed. > > Here is the full history (which I also summarized during IETF103 as well). I > will send a second email discussing this. > > - Jan 2, 2018 Publication: draft-li-dynamic-flooding and > drfat-li-dynamic-flooding-isis > published centralized solution. > > - Mar 5, 2018 Publication: draft-cc-isis-flooding-reduction and > draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction > published distributed solution. > - mention of centralized solution asserting it is not good choice. > > - IETF 101 (Mar 2018) > - Video: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHmT4ytMn4w&list=PLC86T-6ZTP5j_HaBNdfPbgxGIp22cnaWS > - Minute
Re: [Lsr] 答复: Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
Lizhenbin writes: Hi Chris & Acee, - Jan 2, 2018 Publication: draft-li-dynamic-flooding and drfat-li-dynamic-flooding-isis published centralized solution. - Mar 5, 2018 Publication: draft-cc-isis-flooding-reduction and draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction published distributed solution Thanks for your summary we know the fact that at beginning there was not any confliction between the two drafts. - Jun 28, 2018 draft-li-dynamic-flooding-05 published (2 authors) - *SMALL CHANGE TO SUPPORT DISTRIBUTED ALGORITHM*. - Does not specify distributed algorithm only how to indicate one in use, small change. I do not think it is a small change. It is to introduced the totally new solution which was already defined in the other existing draft. It is not an appropariate behavior and the root cause of the potential confliction. It added 8 bits to signal which distributed algorithm (if any) was in use. How is that not small? I also think the distributed solution includes more than the algorithms defined in the draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-00 and the overlapped signallings defined in the draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-00/draft-li-dynamic-flooding-03. Since the co-authors could not merge the draft, though the existing suggestion proposed is try to separate the two drafts, there is still overlap on the distributed solution between the two drafts which may be the source of continuous confliction in the future. In order to avoid the situation I would like to propose following suggestions: Yes, the CC draft added a ton of new signaling after the fact. We didn't need this, and it has been the root cause of the conflict. The signaling is not the hard part to solve here and we don't need to be spending all this time and effort (15 authors now?!) on it. Instead of spending more time on signaling, we need to get rid of this conflict, and have people working on the *actual hard problems* of the flooding topology calculation. There's no conflict here, there's room for multiple solutions, and it's the hard part. Thanks, Chris. - move both the two drafts forward in parallel keeping draft-li-dynamic-flooding focus on the centralized solution and draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction on the distributed solution. - draft-li-dynamic-flooding can keep on refining the centralized solution without mentioning distibuted solutions. - draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction can keep on refining the distributed solutions. For the sigalling which can be shared by the two modes, the draft can indicate the distributed solutions reuse the signalling defined in draft-li-dynamic-flooding without defining new signalling. - both drafts change the draft names to reflect different solutions without causing confusion. Thanks & Regards, Zhenbin (Robin) 发件人: Lsr [lsr-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Christian Hopps [cho...@chopps.org] 发送时间: 2019年2月1日 20:25 收件人: lsr@ietf.org 抄送: cho...@chopps.org 主题: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux] Summary of where we are at with dynamic flooding reduction: - We have a well written original work that came first and described the problems as well as a TLVs to allow for a centralized solution (draft-li-dyanmic-flooding). We do not need to standardize the centralized algorithm. - A small change to this work allowed for distributed algorithms and for outside work on distributed algorithms to continue in parallel. - We have another original work that started primarily as a distributed algorithm (draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction) - Finally we also have: - Cross-pollination of ideas. - Failed attempts at merging. - An authors list "Arms-Race". Moving forward: - During IETF 103 I proposed we have no conflict if we: 1) adopt draft-li-lsr-dyanmic-flooding as the base WG document. 2) have authors of draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction work on a distributed algorithm as they started with. - Acee agreed during the meeting (as chair) that this was the best way forward. We had some agreement form the floor as well. - Any good ideas regarding the distribution of a centralized topology can be debated and added (with appropriate attribution) to the base document after we adopt one. - This is what happens when we adopt a document as WG work, we work on it. - The original authors of the distributed solution can continue to work on their distributed algorithm in a separate document which would also need standardization. Does anyone see a serious problem with this path forward? Thanks, Chris & Acee. LSR Chairs. Christian Hopps writes: We've had the authors of the individual conflicting drafts take a shot at merging their work. This has failed. Here is the full history (which I also summarized during IETF103 as well). I will send a second email discussing this. - Jan 2, 2018 Publication: draft-li-dynamic-flooding and drfat-li-dynamic-flooding-isis published centralized solution. - Ma
Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
Aijun Wang writes: Hi, Christian: Based on your information, it is more fair to adopt these two drafts as WG documents at the same time. The reasons are the followings: 1. The centralized and distributed modes don’t conflict with each other. Anyone can contribute their thoughts on them at their interests. No we do not adopt 2 documents solving the same relatively simple problem (signaling, primarily for centralized mode), we adopt one and incorporate any improvements needed, this isn't that hard a problem and we certainly don't need multiple solutions. Work on algorithms *is* a hard problem and can and should continue to be done in parallel with no conflict. 2. They are both aiming to solve the same problem, which can give the operators more choices once they have been standardized. There's literally *no* reason to do this. We need to do our jobs as a WG and produce a single standard for signaling. 3. The technique disputes between these two drafts are undergoing on the mailing list. If they are not well solved, we still need to discuss them after the adoption. It’s too hurry to make the adoption conclusion at current time. We've had a *YEAR* of multiple author documents, we're not hurrying at all, it's time to move forward. Thanks, Chris. Aijun Wang China Telecom 在 2019年2月1日，20:25，Christian Hopps 写道： Summary of where we are at with dynamic flooding reduction: - We have a well written original work that came first and described the problems as well as a TLVs to allow for a centralized solution (draft-li-dyanmic-flooding). We do not need to standardize the centralized algorithm. - A small change to this work allowed for distributed algorithms and for outside work on distributed algorithms to continue in parallel. - We have another original work that started primarily as a distributed algorithm (draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction) - Finally we also have: - Cross-pollination of ideas. - Failed attempts at merging. - An authors list "Arms-Race". Moving forward: - During IETF 103 I proposed we have no conflict if we: 1) adopt draft-li-lsr-dyanmic-flooding as the base WG document. 2) have authors of draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction work on a distributed algorithm as they started with. - Acee agreed during the meeting (as chair) that this was the best way forward. We had some agreement form the floor as well. - Any good ideas regarding the distribution of a centralized topology can be debated and added (with appropriate attribution) to the base document after we adopt one. - This is what happens when we adopt a document as WG work, we work on it. - The original authors of the distributed solution can continue to work on their distributed algorithm in a separate document which would also need standardization. Does anyone see a serious problem with this path forward? Thanks, Chris & Acee. LSR Chairs. Christian Hopps writes: We've had the authors of the individual conflicting drafts take a shot at merging their work. This has failed. Here is the full history (which I also summarized during IETF103 as well). I will send a second email discussing this. - Jan 2, 2018 Publication: draft-li-dynamic-flooding and drfat-li-dynamic-flooding-isis published centralized solution. - Mar 5, 2018 Publication: draft-cc-isis-flooding-reduction and draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction published distributed solution. - mention of centralized solution asserting it is not good choice. - IETF 101 (Mar 2018) - Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHmT4ytMn4w&list=PLC86T-6ZTP5j_HaBNdfPbgxGIp22cnaWS - Minutes: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/minutes-101-lsr-00 - draft-li-dynamic-flooding-02 presented (1 author). at IETF 101 - Generally well received. - draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-00 (4 authors) presented. - Serious problems immediately found during presentation -- not fully baked. - Mar 18, 2018 draft-li-dynamic-flooding-03 published (1 author) - Mar 27, 2018 draft-li-dynamic-flooding-04 published (1 author) - Apr 20, 2018 draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-01 revised - Jun 28, 2018 draft-li-dynamic-flooding-05 published (2 authors) - *SMALL CHANGE TO SUPPORT DISTRIBUTED ALGORITHM*. - Does not specify distributed algorithm only how to indicate one in use, small change. - Jul 2, 2018 draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-02 published - IETF 102 (Jul 14, 2018) - draft-li-dynamic-flooding-05 presented. - draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-02 presented. - Sep 12, 2018 draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-03 (4 authors) - *LARGE CHANGE ADDS NEW CENTRALIZED SOLUTION*. - Sep 20, 2018 draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-04 (4 authors) - Oct 21, 2018 draft-li-lsr-dynamic-flooding-00 and -01 (5 authors) - IETF 103 (Nov 3, 2018) - Chairs give direction - draft-li-lsr-dynamic-flooding-05 having come first, being well written and not specifying a distributed algorithm (merely allowing for one) is the correct vehicle to adopt
[Lsr] 答复: Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
Hi Chris & Acee, > - Jan 2, 2018 Publication: draft-li-dynamic-flooding and > drfat-li-dynamic-flooding-isis > published centralized solution. > > - Mar 5, 2018 Publication: draft-cc-isis-flooding-reduction and > draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction > published distributed solution Thanks for your summary we know the fact that at beginning there was not any confliction between the two drafts. > - Jun 28, 2018 draft-li-dynamic-flooding-05 published (2 authors) > - *SMALL CHANGE TO SUPPORT DISTRIBUTED ALGORITHM*. > - Does not specify distributed algorithm only how to indicate one in use, > small change. I do not think it is a small change. It is to introduced the totally new solution which was already defined in the other existing draft. It is not an appropariate behavior and the root cause of the potential confliction. I also think the distributed solution includes more than the algorithms defined in the draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-00 and the overlapped signallings defined in the draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-00/draft-li-dynamic-flooding-03. Since the co-authors could not merge the draft, though the existing suggestion proposed is try to separate the two drafts, there is still overlap on the distributed solution between the two drafts which may be the source of continuous confliction in the future. In order to avoid the situation I would like to propose following suggestions: - move both the two drafts forward in parallel keeping draft-li-dynamic-flooding focus on the centralized solution and draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction on the distributed solution. - draft-li-dynamic-flooding can keep on refining the centralized solution without mentioning distibuted solutions. - draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction can keep on refining the distributed solutions. For the sigalling which can be shared by the two modes, the draft can indicate the distributed solutions reuse the signalling defined in draft-li-dynamic-flooding without defining new signalling. - both drafts change the draft names to reflect different solutions without causing confusion. Thanks & Regards, Zhenbin (Robin) 发件人: Lsr [lsr-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Christian Hopps [cho...@chopps.org] 发送时间: 2019年2月1日 20:25 收件人: lsr@ietf.org 抄送: cho...@chopps.org 主题: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux] Summary of where we are at with dynamic flooding reduction: - We have a well written original work that came first and described the problems as well as a TLVs to allow for a centralized solution (draft-li-dyanmic-flooding). We do not need to standardize the centralized algorithm. - A small change to this work allowed for distributed algorithms and for outside work on distributed algorithms to continue in parallel. - We have another original work that started primarily as a distributed algorithm (draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction) - Finally we also have: - Cross-pollination of ideas. - Failed attempts at merging. - An authors list "Arms-Race". Moving forward: - During IETF 103 I proposed we have no conflict if we: 1) adopt draft-li-lsr-dyanmic-flooding as the base WG document. 2) have authors of draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction work on a distributed algorithm as they started with. - Acee agreed during the meeting (as chair) that this was the best way forward. We had some agreement form the floor as well. - Any good ideas regarding the distribution of a centralized topology can be debated and added (with appropriate attribution) to the base document after we adopt one. - This is what happens when we adopt a document as WG work, we work on it. - The original authors of the distributed solution can continue to work on their distributed algorithm in a separate document which would also need standardization. Does anyone see a serious problem with this path forward? Thanks, Chris & Acee. LSR Chairs. Christian Hopps writes: > We've had the authors of the individual conflicting drafts take a shot at > merging their work. > >This has failed. > > Here is the full history (which I also summarized during IETF103 as well). I > will send a second email discussing this. > > - Jan 2, 2018 Publication: draft-li-dynamic-flooding and > drfat-li-dynamic-flooding-isis > published centralized solution. > > - Mar 5, 2018 Publication: draft-cc-isis-flooding-reduction and > draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction > published distributed solution. > - mention of centralized solution asserting it is not good choice. > > - IETF 101 (Mar 2018) > - Video: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHmT4ytMn4w&list=PLC86T-6ZTP5j_HaBNdfPbgxGIp22cnaWS > - Minutes: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/minutes-101-lsr-00 > - draft-li-dynamic-flooding-02 presented (1 author). at IETF 101 > - Generally well received. > - draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-00 (4 authors) presented. > - Serious problems immediately found during
