I'm afraid I really don't understand just what the point of adopting
this document would be.
All the document really says is that one can improve scale by using
hierarchy. That is certainly true, but hardly a new result. The
document gives two examples of hierarchical structure: a two-level
hierarchy and an "optional" three-level hierarchy. I'm not sure why the
three-level hierarchy is any more or less optional than the two-level
hierarchy or any other form of hierarchy.
The document goes on to sketch an application that could be run over the
hierarchy, the application of setting up pseudowires with SLA. Then it
gives an example of how one might (or might not) set up a control plane
to run the example application over the example hierarchy. But one
certainly couldn't hand this draft to a vendor and say "this is what I
want"; there isn't nearly enough content in the draft for it to be used
that way.
The document doesn't seem to rule out any alternatives, or even give
considerations that could be used to rule out alternatives.
The document doesn't require anything, doesn't prohibit anything,
doesn't provide any kind of comprehensive analysis, doesn't really
address any protocol issues. While it does present some interesting
thoughts about the use of hieararchy in a spring-based network, I don't
think it makes any sense for the working group to adopt the document in
its present form.
It is possible that the document is intended to evolve into a more
comprehensive study of hierarchical approaches to segment routing. In
that case, I think it would be useful to see a little more of that
evolution before considering whether to adopt the document.
On 7/24/2016 8:55 AM, John G. Scudder wrote:
Dear WG,
As we discussed at our meeting, working group adoption has been requested for
draft‐filsfils‐spring‐large-scale-interconnect. Please reply to the list with
your comments, including although not limited to whether or not you support
adoption. Non-authors are especially encouraged to comment.
We will end the call on August 31, 2015.
Authors, please indicate whether you are aware of any relevant IPR and if so, whether it
has been disclosed. Also, the length of the author list for this document greatly exceeds
the maximum recommended. Assuming the document is adopted, the authors should be prepared
to correct this when submitting as a WG document, ideally by reducing the list to simply
the active editor(s) and making use of the "contributors" section for the full
list.
Thanks,
--Bruno and John
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
