Hi Chris, Put the content together, my understanding is that “As a WG member, I agree with Tony P’s comments about using transport instance.” Please correct me if I misunderstood you, and I’ll update the minute.
Thanks, Yingzhen > On Nov 17, 2021, at 6:59 AM, Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> wrote: > > > >> On Nov 16, 2021, at 10:36 PM, Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> The followings are the responses for the comments on PUAM >> draft(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-08) >> >> Les: The comment I want to make, I think the discussion on the >> list highlighted the fact that there's an open question, >> independent of whether we use the prefix unreachable >> draft or the Event Notification draft, as to whether this >> problem should be solved by the IGP or whether it should be >> solved by BGP, or in some other way. And I think the logical >> way to proceed on this is to get the consensus of the working >> group as to whether an IGP solution is desired first, then >> after we reach consensus on that, then we can start talking >> about which approach is the better approach. Which one >> should be adopted? >> 【WAJ】The problem is occurred due to the summary action by the ABR router in >> IGP, it should be solved by IGP itself. >> As discussed earlier on the list, the possible use case is not limited to >> BGP fast convergence. >> Based on the above considerations, it is not appropriated solved via BGP. >> >> Chris H: Chair hat on. You've been asking for adoption for a while. >> The event notification draft is new. I agree with Les that >> in a perfect world that would be the case, but asking for >> adoption is one way to answer the question. It may be not >> the perfect way to answer that question, but it is one way. >> I agree without my chair hat on, I'm not sure we need this, >> but it's not for me to say by fiat. Acee did put something >> out on the list to try to engage people again. And I don't >> think a lot got said. >> 【WAJ】we have several round discussions for this topic but there is always no >> conclusion at the end. >> Can the expert that reluctant to accept the new idea to give some >> specific questions/problems for the current solution? >> Or else it is not helpful for the solve of the existing problem. >> Initiate the adoption call maybe the best way to let the experts >> express their opinions? >> We would like to hear the specific and detail comments for the current >> solutions, not just general comments. >> >> Acee: I didn't see much support other than from the authors. I >> saw one non-author support on the event notification. >> 【WAJ】Does anyone not agree what we analyze/summarize at the presentation >> material for the two solutions? >> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/112/materials/slides-112-lsr-05-puam-stublink-00.pdf, >> the 5th slide) >> >> Chris: Everyone has a right to ask for an adoption. Everyone has a >> right to say we shouldn't adopt this and there are the >> reasons. We've let people to express opinions, without >> seeing a lot of negative opinions it's hard not to just grant >> the adoption call. >> 【WAJ】I agree. >> >> Tony P: I think this is all making a trash can out of the IGP. One >> possible solution is to ban or encouraged maybe everyone with >> these kind of suggestions to go towards the service instance >> stuff or whatever we call it, which I think is a good idea. >> Just run a power line up and much lower priority. Don't trash >> the main protocol that holds the whole thing together. >> 【WAJ】Do you consider the deployment complexity for independent service >> instance to transfer such thing? And also the interaction on the device >> among the main IGP instance and the service instances? It’s the fault of the >> main protocol, and should be solved by the main protocol. >> >> Chris: Great comment for the adoption call. As a WG member, I agree. > > This makes it seem like I'm saying that I agree with your response. I'd > strike that "As a WG member, I agree". > > Thanks, > Chris. > > >> >> >> >> From: lsr-boun...@ietf.org <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem >> (acee) >> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 2:56 AM >> To: lsr@ietf.org >> Subject: [Lsr] IETF 112 LSR Meeting Minutes >> >> The IETF 112 LSR Meeting Minutes have been uploaded. Thanks to Yingzhen Qu >> for taking them!!! >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/112/materials/minutes-112-lsr-00 >> >> The IETF 112 LSR Meeting MeetEcho recording is available here: >> >> https://play.conf.meetecho.com/Playout/?session=IETF112-LSR-20211111-1200 >> >> 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
