Hi, It is possible to designate experimental RFCs as historic if there is no evidence of widespread use over a period of time, as is currently being done for HTTP-related experimental RFCs: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-http-experiments-to-historic/
Hence, I think having multiple experimental publications for a problem is ok.. Regards, Muthu On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 6:08 AM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg= 40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Acee – > > > > Thanx for responding while you are on vacation. > > > > While it is true I am not enthusiastic about any of the solutions, my > point of emphasis is that it’s a failure of WG process to simply move > forward with all solutions – which it seems to me is what is about to > happen. > > > > Note that this is completely consistent with what I said back when WG > adoption for the drafts was being discussed (thanx to Tony P for pointing > me back to that time (June 21, 2020)): > > > > *<snip>* > > *I support the WG adoption of > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy/> .* > > > > *(I also support WG adoption of > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection> )* > > > > *I believe the problem space addressed by these two drafts warrants > attention.* > > *…* > > *The easy road for the WG to take would be to simply allow both drafts to > proceed to Experimental RFCs, but I hope we are able to do more than this. > Multiple solutions place undesirable burdens on vendors and providers > alike.* > > > > *To the extent they feel comfortable, I encourage folks who wish to deploy > such solutions to share their requirements and discuss how each of the > solutions* > > *address their requirements/fall short of addressing their requirements. I > think this would help the WG discover better ways forward.* > > > > *<end snip>* > > > > Don’t think we have made progress in that regard… > > > > Les > > > > > > *From:* Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, December 9, 2021 1:59 PM > *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; Tony Przygienda < > tonysi...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>; lsr@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Using L1 for Transit Traffic in IS-IS > > > > Hi Les, > > > > I know you don’t feel that the IGP should solve this problem but there was > lots of interest in the three solutions to reduce the overhead when using > IS-IS L1 as transit for IS- IS L2. Let’s not rehash that. > > > > What do feel needs to be done? Note that I’m on vacation and unlikely to > engage again until next week… > > > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > *From: *"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsb...@cisco.com> > *Date: *Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 2:05 PM > *To: *Tony Przygienda <tonysi...@gmail.com> > *Cc: *Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, Acee > Lindem <a...@cisco.com> > *Subject: *RE: [Lsr] Using L1 for Transit Traffic in IS-IS > > > > Let me try to clarify my position… > > > > Two disjoint sets of authors looked at the same problem space and > independently came up with two different (and incompatible) protocol > extensions to provide a solution. > > > > (Aside: I believe fully that both sets of authors have done their best to > define what they think is a good solution. If anything I have said suggests > otherwise, that was not my intent and I apologize to both sets of authors > for any misunderstanding.) > > > > Both solutions have been published as WG documents and assigned protocol > codepoints. > > We are now being asked to publish both drafts as RFCs (I am assuming based > on Tony Li’s response that the LC request for Area Proxy is soon to happen.) > > > > I don’t believe the WG has reached consensus that the IGPs should be > extended to address the problem. > > I don’t believe the WG has reached consensus as to which solution is > “better”. > > I don’t believe the WG has even discussed whether a single solution or > multiple solutions are required. > > If multiple solutions are required, there has been no discussion as to > when each of the solutions should be used. Are there some deployment > scenarios where flood-reflection is a better fit and some where area proxy > is a better fit? > > Is there a need for additional solutions i.e., deployments where neither > of the current candidates are suitable? > > > > It seems to me that by entertaining a LC request at this point we are > simply functioning as a pass through to allow multiple individual solutions > to be published as RFCs. And while there are currently two solutions to the > same problem space asking to progress, I think we can expect others and we > have no basis on which to reject other proposals. > > > > This is very different from how any other work brought before the > LSR/OSPF/IS-IS WGs has been done in the 20+ years during which I have been > an active participant. > > In all other cases, the WG has strived to come up with a single > interoperable solution. > > Sometimes only one solution is proposed and it is refined based on > discussion and then progressed. > > Sometimes multiple solutions are proposed and there is discussion of both > which results in choosing one over the other or some sort of merge of the > solutions. > > But I do not recall a case where the WG simply allowed multiple > non-interoperable solutions to the same problem to be published as RFCs > largely w/o comment. > > > > I do not think this is an appropriate use of the Standards process and I > do not think this serves the industry. > > This does not mean that either solution is w/o merit – but I do think the > requests for Last Call are premature. > > But, this is just my opinion. > > If the WG (members, chairs, and ADs) think otherwise then the WG should > act appropriately. > > > > Thanx for listening. > > > > Les > > > > > > *From:* Tony Przygienda <tonysi...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 8, 2021 5:27 AM > *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> > *Cc:* Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>; lsr@ietf.org; Acee Lindem (acee) < > a...@cisco.com> > *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Using L1 for Transit Traffic in IS-IS > > > > Les, all sounds to me unfortunately like a gripe (and a late one @ that > now that things were worked on in WG for years & are ready to RFC being > customer deployed, @ least flood reflection is). > > > > Plus, unless you have a dramatically better idea than the drafts extended > I fail to understand what your point is except as Tony1 says "we should not > scale IGP higher?" (AFAIS hierarchy is not an answer here unless you ask > customers for a flag day with lots new static configuration everywhere and > possibly restructuring of their network to a hard-coded "hierarchy" and > albeit such effort may work in some totalitarian countries on in pretty > small networks, the majority of large ISIS customers will end such > discussions in timeframe of single minutes clock count ;-) > > > > -- tony > > > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 4:23 AM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg= > 40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > (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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
