I want to make sure I'm not misinterpreted here, I'm not asking for a new draft specifying these behaviors. I view these as flooding-algorithm-independent generic behaviors. If there is something wrong or missing from this basic set, they can be fixed via normal WG discussion and update. For a specific centralized of distributed flooding algorithm, these behaviors could be potentially be augmented with backward compatible enhancements.
Thanks, Acee On 2/14/19, 6:00 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com> wrote: Speaking as a WG member, I just re-read section 6.7 and all the actions for distributed computation are pretty much intuitive corollaries for the actions for the centralized solution. I see no real reason to remove these. However, there is nothing to prevent improvements to be proposed in an alternate draft. Thanks, Acee On 2/14/19, 8:58 AM, "John E Drake" <jdr...@juniper.net> wrote: Hi, I completely agree with Peter. Yours Irrespectively, John > -----Original Message----- > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Peter Psenak > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2019 2:30 AM > To: Huaimo Chen <huaimo.c...@huawei.com>; Acee Lindem (acee) > <a...@cisco.com>; Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux] > > Hi Huaimo, > > On 13/02/2019 22:50 , Huaimo Chen wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > > > My explanations/answers are in line below with prefix [HC]. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 4:58 AM > > To: Huaimo Chen <huaimo.c...@huawei.com>; Acee Lindem (acee) > > <a...@cisco.com>; Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>; lsr@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux] > > > > Hi Huaimo, > > > > On 03/02/2019 17:58 , Huaimo Chen wrote: > >> Hi Acee, > >> > >> > >> > >> I agree with you on keeping the signaling for two modes. The > >> other parts for the distributed solution need to be removed. > > optimized flooding is not only about algorithm to calculate the flooding > topology and the way it is distributed/computed. It is also about local rules to > make sure the flooding remains consistent. These are _independent_ of > centralized/distributed modes. And it make no sense to specify these rules in > two drafts. > > > > There are no "other" parts specific for the distributed solution. > > > > [HC] Some behaviors for the distributed solution/mode are described in draft- > li-dynamic-flooding. For example, there are a few of places from page 27 to 30, > which define the behaviors specific for the distributed solution/mode. > > I strongly disagree. The fact that we say in centralized mode area leader > recomputes and in distributed mode all nodes recompute make no difference in > behavior. > > thanks, > Peter > > > > > draft-li-dyanmic-flooding defines: > > > > 1. the signalling that is common and used by both modes 2. distribution of the > flooding-topology, which is specific to centralized mode 3. common behavior of > the nodes that support the extension, which is independent of the mode of > operation. > > > > [HC] In addition to these, draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction defines more, > including concrete protections, operations, and algorithms for computing a > flooding topology. > > > > Best Regards, > > Huaimo > > > > thanks, > > Peter > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> > >> Huaimo > >> > >> *From:* Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com] > >> *Sent:* Sunday, February 3, 2019 11:45 AM > >> *To:* Huaimo Chen <huaimo.c...@huawei.com>; Christian Hopps > >> <cho...@chopps.org>; lsr@ietf.org > >> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft > >> Redux] > >> > >> > >> > >> Hi Huaimo, > >> > >> > >> > >> See inline. > >> > >> > >> > >> *From: *Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on > >> behalf of Huaimo Chen <huaimo.c...@huawei.com > >> <mailto:huaimo.c...@huawei.com>> > >> *Date: *Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 12:27 AM > >> *To: *Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org <mailto:cho...@chopps.org>>, > >> "lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>" <lsr@ietf.org > >> <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>> > >> *Subject: *Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft > >> Redux] > >> > >> > >> > >> Hi Everyone, > >> > >> > >> > >> We proposed the distributed solution first, and Tony proposed the > >> centralized solution first. Tony added the distributed solution > >> (except for the algorithms to compute flooding topology) into his > >> draft. And then we added the centralized solution into our draft. The > >> latest versions of the two drafts have largely converged at least at > >> the high level to a solution for solving the same problem. > >> > >> > >> > >> Our draft has multiple key technical advantages over Tony's draft as > >> we described in our email to the LSR list, which are summarized below: > >> > >> 1. It uses a fraction of flooding resource (i.e., it is multiple > >> times more efficient in flooding topology encoding); > >> > >> 2. It provides fault tolerance to multiple failures, minimizing > >> impact on network convergence, thus minimizing traffic lose; and > >> > >> 3. It is simpler and needs less processing time (i.e., faster and > >> more efficient) in multiple scenarios. > >> > >> Based on the technical merits, our draft should be moved forward. > >> However, Chair proposed to move Tony's draft forward and have us work > >> on a distributed algorithm as we started with. > >> > >> > >> > >> I think that the distributed solution in Tony's draft needs to be > >> removed and they work on the centralized solution. We remove the > >> centralized solution from our draft and work on the distributed solution. > >> > >> > >> > >> I'm against "cutting the baby in half" given that the signaling for > >> the distributed solution is a proper subset of what is required for > >> the centralized solution. It is undesirable to have different > >> signaling for the two modes. For the distributed algorithm you are > >> proposing, do see problems with the signaling? > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Acee > >> > >> > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> > >> Huaimo > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> > >> From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christian Hopps > >> > >> Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 7:26 AM > >> > >> To: lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org> > >> > >> Cc: cho...@chopps.org <mailto:cho...@chopps.org> > >> > >> Subject: [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 <cho...@chopps.org <mailto:cho...@chopps.org>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_ > >> watch-3Fv-3DqHmT4ytMn4w-26list-3DPLC86T-2D6ZTP5j- > 5FHaBNdfP&d=DwICAg&c > >> =HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT- > h5LGhEW > >> H- > s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=kykK2jUejhafPHOrWXu0yvNk7XsXUoDYsWjFoFGHeT > g&s > >> =cBWxI4Hu1GZNWxuUZRREnZNg-cZZYbdrLHRXKsUama4&e= > >> bgxGIp22cnaWS > >> > >>> - Minutes: > >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf > >> .org_meeting_101_materials_minutes-2D101-2Dlsr- > 2D00&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh > >> 63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH- > s_xXX > >> > up3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=kykK2jUejhafPHOrWXu0yvNk7XsXUoDYsWjFoFGHeTg&s= > 1UTDcj > >> zO1b-Ful7k87ItzHcvqzRveIK_m_FI9eIDLFs&e= > >> > >>> - 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 as a base document. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> - Distributed algorithm work (the original basis for > >> draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction) > >> > >>> should continue as a separate document form the base which > >>> would > >> thus we have no > >> > >>> conflicts. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> - In the meantime the authors try and merge work, this fails. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> - Dec 3, 2018 draft-li-lsr-dynamic-flooding-02 (7 authors) > >> > >>> > >> > >>> - Dec 10, 2018 draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-00 (4 authors) > >> > >>> > >> > >>> - Jan 7, 2019 draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-01 (8 authors) > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Lsr mailing list > >> Lsr@ietf.org > >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mai > >> lman_listinfo_lsr&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK- > ndb3voDTXcWz > >> oCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH- > s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=kykK2jUejhafPHOrW > >> > Xu0yvNk7XsXUoDYsWjFoFGHeTg&s=BTZ1l1KpTxr_U3n0pZnknvuPBGxRM9ul08q > CKpaE > >> eXk&e= > >> > > > > . > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_lsr&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0 > UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH- > s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=kykK2jUejhafPHOrWXu0yvNk7XsXUoDYsWjFoFGHeT > g&s=BTZ1l1KpTxr_U3n0pZnknvuPBGxRM9ul08qCKpaEeXk&e= _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr