Hi Ajun,
Thanks for the review. Response inline See [rb]
Ron
________________________________
From: Aijun Wang <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2026 10:23 PM
To: 'Christian Hopps' <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected]
<[email protected]>; [email protected]
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [Lsr] Re: WG adoption call for draft-many-lsr-power-group-03 (Ends
2026-08-30)
【Correct one typo: 】
I do not support its adoption.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Aijun Wang
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 10:19 AM
To: 'Christian Hopps' <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [Lsr] Re: WG adoption call for draft-many-lsr-power-group-03 (Ends
2026-08-30)
Hi, All:
I do not support is adoption.
The reason are the followings:
1) The base document,
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-many-teas-power-steering/__;!!NpxR!iPWTa_HdgTs4cfKq-wRonK1P2gTSQHdnS6G14eA4oW_y_OIb6VUvnFZwy4DJlK0_xuExEoZ2KnHSBwyHIjSsao3c$
, has not been adopted as the TEAS WG document, it is too early to determine
whether the IGP protocol extension is necessary or not.
[rb] I think that Gunther addressed this issue. In any event, the TEAS WG is
currently having a call for adoption on draft-many-teas-power-group.
2) There is no any description, or argument to describe the reason that
accomplish the power saving via the distributed IGP protocol and the challenge
for the network operation etc. when comparing with the solution solely via the
management plane(NETCONT/YANG etc.)
[rb] The current drafts describe a distributed Power Conserving Path Placement
Solution. They do not preclude a centralized solution. Because we do not
preclude a centralized solution, we don't feel the need to argue against one.
3) Considering the mentioned interfaces can only be switched on/off via the
management, I am wondering why bother IGP to accomplish the path calculation
work then?
[rb] Are you sure that interfaces can only be switched on/off via a network
management interface? Is it possible that the platform might offer an API
through which an interface can be switched on/off? Might that API be made
available to multiple network management applications (e.g., CLI, NETCONF)?
Might that API also be made available to a local application that monitors
interface utilization and powers interface on/off as needed?
Are you sure that the IGP does the path calculation work? According to
draft-many-teas-power-steering, CSPF does the path calculation work. It uses
the PCPPS metric to do so. It uses the TLVs described in
draft-many-lsr-power-group to calculate the PCPPS metric.
4) Given the discussions for the encoding of proposed TLVs, and the authors'
responses for the updating them later, which are all non-trivial modifications,
it's better to postpone to its adoption.
[rb] This is a procedural issue, to be addressed by the chairs. Typically, at
the end of a call for adoption, authors are given a chance to produce a new
version of the draft that addresses issues raided during the call for adoption.
5) The document defines only some TLVs and there is no any procedures to
describe how to utilize them, how to coordinate with other existing
TLVs/sub-TLVs/Flooding mechanism etc., it will be difficult for other vendors
to implement and will influence future interoperability.
[rb] Which TLVs are missing? As per draft-many-teas-power-steering, these TLVs
are used as inputs to the PCPPS metric calculation. Which interactions are
missing? Should the addition of any TLV or sub-TLV change the flooding
mechanism?
Ron
Best Regards
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Christian Hopps via Datatracker
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 8:57 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-many-lsr-power-group-03 (Ends
2026-08-30)
Hi Folks,
This begins a 2 week WG Adoption Call for the following draft:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-many-lsr-power-group/__;!!NpxR!iPWTa_HdgTs4cfKq-wRonK1P2gTSQHdnS6G14eA4oW_y_OIb6VUvnFZwy4DJlK0_xuExEoZ2KnHSBwyHIv92BtCB$
Please indicate your support or objections by August 30th, 2026.
An IPR declaration has been made
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-many-lsr-power-group__;!!NpxR!iPWTa_HdgTs4cfKq-wRonK1P2gTSQHdnS6G14eA4oW_y_OIb6VUvnFZwy4DJlK0_xuExEoZ2KnHSBwyHIpbPHXJm$
Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any
other IPR that applies to this draft.
Thanks,
Chris.
[Call for adoption end date (2026-08-30)]
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
