(Subject was: RE: [Lsr] WG Last Call for "IS-IS Flood Reflection"
-draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05)
(Changing the subject as Acee has suggested that discussion of the problem
space is inappropriate for the WG LC thread)
Tony (and everyone) –
This isn’t the first contentious issue the WG has considered. By way of
comparison (hopefully a useful one), a number of folks (including you and I)
are participating in another contentious issue – fast-flooding.
But for fast-flooding there is broad WG consensus that fast-flooding is
something that IS-IS should do. The contentious part is regarding what is the
best way to do it. And we are proceeding in a manner where different algorithms
are being tested while still in the WG document stage. And there is hope (still
TBD) that multiple algorithms may be able to interoperate.
Here, I am not convinced that there is broad WG consensus that this is a
problem that the IGPs should solve. (If I am wrong on that I presume the WG
members will let me know.)
And, we have multiple proposals, none of which have any hope of interoperating
with each other.
And we have had very little discussion about the problem space. (not your fault
– certainly you have been willing as have the authors of the competing draft)
So, at best, I think WG LC is premature. I would like to see more discussion as
to whether this is a problem that IGPs should solve as well as a general look
at how this might be done with and/or without the IGPs.
And since all of the proposed solutions have been allocated code points, they
can continue to gain implementation/deployment experience in the meantime.
Therefore, I do not see that we need to make this choice now.
I realize that you are not the one asking for WG LC and I don’t know when you
plan to do so and I am not trying to influence you in that regard.
But for me, WG LC is at best premature.
As regards you trying to solve a real world customer ask, I was aware of that.
And I believe the authors of flood-reflection can make the same claim.
Thanx for listening,
Les
From: Tony Li <tony1ath...@gmail.com> On Behalf Of Tony Li
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 2:53 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>
Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>;
lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection"
-draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05
Les,
And in response to Tony Li’s statement: “…the IETF is at its best when it is
documenting de facto standards”
1) I fully believe that our customers understand their requirements(sic) better
than we (vendors) do. But that does not mean that they understand what is the
best solution better than we do.
When a customer comes to me and says “Can you do this?” my first response is
usually “Please fully describe your requirements independent of the solution.”
If it matters at all, Area Proxy is the result of a customer explaining his
issues and my attempt to address them. I’m sorry you don’t like my proposal.
2)Not clear to me that there is an existing “de facto standard” here – which is
reinforced by the fact that we have so many different solutions proposed.
There isn’t. Yet. Thus, it’s not time to pick one vs. the other.
Tony
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
