Hi, Chris: If so, let’s adopt them directly then, why seek the opinions from the WG? I would like to illustrate my opinions again: Application specific attributes just one small part of the application based solution, there are other issues needed to be considered and solved. And I think the alternative systematic solution will obsolete RFC8919 and RFC8920 together. The bis draft are just repeating its precedent, and will be replaced also accordingly, unless it solves the issues that I mentioned.
Aijun Wang China Telecom > On Aug 9, 2022, at 21:50, Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> wrote: > > > We were asked by the AD to process these clarifications using bis drafts, > rather than errata. That is what this is. There should be no controversy > here. Let's not create any, please. > > Thanks, > Chris. > > Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> writes: > >> Hi, Acee, Peter: >> >> If there is no significant updates for these two RFCs, I recommend we delay >> the obsolete of them, also the adoption call for these two bis drafts. >> What we should do is to find other more scalable, extensible and systematic >> approaches for the application specified advertisements. >> >> For example, for the multiple application scenarios, is it enough just >> define the application specified attributes? >> >> From my understandings, different applications may build different LSDBs, run >> different SPF algorithm, update at different frequencies, forming different >> forwarding tables etc. It is necessary to divide/group all the above items >> based >> on application, not just the attributes. >> >> >> Aijun Wang >> China Telecom >> >>>> On Aug 9, 2022, at 18:31, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Aijun, >>> >>> And the BIS changes are more clarifications than changes to the existing >>> RFC 8919 and RFC 8920 RFCs. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Acee >>> >>> On 8/9/22, 5:57 AM, "Peter Psenak" <ppse...@cisco.com> wrote: >>> >>> Aijun, >>> >>>> On 09/08/2022 05:35, Aijun Wang wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I am wondering why we are so hurry to obsolete RFC8919, given that only the >>>> minor parts are updated (mainly the zero length SABM/UABM, and other >>>> interoperability issues). >>>> There may be other methods to advertise the application specific >>>> attributes. >>>>> From my POV, the rules, implementation of ASLA are still complex, the >>>> deployment of them are challenging. >>>> >>>> Is there any real deployment for RFC8919 until now? >>> >>> sure there are deployments of it. Flex-algo is built around RFC8919, so >>> any network where flex-algo is used with ISIS is using RFC8919. >>> >>> Peter >>> >>>> >>>> Best Regards >>>> >>>> Aijun Wang >>>> China Telecom >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: lsr-boun...@ietf.org <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Christian >>>> Hopps >>>> Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 6:17 PM >>>> To: lsr@ietf.org >>>> Cc: cho...@chopps.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org >>>> Subject: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc8919bis-02 >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Folks, >>>> >>>> This begins a 2 week WG Adoption Call for the following draft: >>>> >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc8919bis/ >>>> >>>> Please indicate your support or objections by August 22nd, 2022. >>>> >>>> Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any >>>> IPR that applies to these drafts. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Chris. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >
signature.asc
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
