> -----Original Message----- > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Aijun Wang > Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 1:48 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> > Cc: John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net>; Christian Hopps > <cho...@chopps.org>; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura > <jefftant.i...@gmail.com>; draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-origina...@ietf.org; > lsr- > a...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-06 > > Hi, Les and experts in LSR: > > I am open to the removal of the this appendix to forward this draft.
[Les:] Great!! Please do so. Les > But as stated in previous mail, providing this can assist the user/reader of > the > draft. We often encounter the questions in the mail list that what the usage > of protocol/bit definition in some drafts. > > Actually, we did not expand the discussion of this part in this draft. The > description of this part is very concise. > > If you insist this, I can update the draft in recent days, together with other > comments on this draft. > > Other comments are welcome also! > > Aijun Wang > China Telecom > > > On Oct 16, 2020, at 13:51, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > > > Aijun - > > > > The point I am making is very focused. > > > > This draft is defining a protocol extension. As such it is necessary that > > this > be Standards track as adhering to the normative statements in the draft are > necessary for interoperability. > > > > What is discussed in the Appendix is a use case. It is not normative and > there are strong opinions on both sides as to whether this is an appropriate > use case or not. > > In the context of this draft, I have no interest in trying to resolve our > difference of opinion on this use case. I simply want the protocol extension > to move forward so that we have another tool available. > > > > If you want to write a draft on the use case discussed in the Appendix > please feel free to do so. That draft may very well not be normative - > Informational or BCP may be more appropriate - because it will be discussing > a deployment scenario and a proposal to use defined protocol extensions as > one way to solve problems in that deployment scenario. Such a draft might > also be more appropriate in another WG (e.g., TEAS). The merits of using > prefix advertisements to build a topology could then be discussed on its own. > > > > Please do not try to avoid having a full discussion of the merits of using > prefix advertisements to derive topology by adding it to a draft that is (and > should be) focused on simple protocol extensions. > > > > Thanx. > > > > Les > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> > >> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 6:51 PM > >> To: 'Jeff Tantsura' <jefftant.i...@gmail.com>; 'John E Drake' > >> <jdr...@juniper.net> > >> Cc: 'Christian Hopps' <cho...@chopps.org>; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; Les > Ginsberg > >> (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; lsr@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org; draft- > ietf- > >> lsr-ospf-prefix-origina...@ietf.org > >> Subject: RE: [Lsr] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-06 > >> > >> Hi, Les, John and Jeff: > >> > >> Let's reply you all together. > >> In my POV, The standard document should not define solely the protocol > >> extension, but their usages in the network deployment. As I known, > almost > >> all the IETF documents following this style. > >> And, before adopting one work, we have often intense discussion for > what's > >> their usages. > >> Such discussion in the mail list and statements in the doc > > _______________________________________________ > 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
