Joel, I think the vast majority of the audience agree and understand that routing protocols should not be overloaded with opaque information. Just look at recent proposals for FSv2 iextensions n BGP and you will likely fall off your chair.
But there is always the least effort path ... if TCP session is there or if IGP flooding is there let's use it. And why is that ? Simply because deploying a new transport requires significant effort. So much more than anything a fair amount of cheerleading is required to make it happen. As to the content of your draft what seems to be clearly missing are two approaches which has been well documented and one even is available as an open source code. I think it would be good to include those and perhaps even discuss them in your draft. *Namely: * Tony's DROID: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-li-lsr-droid-00 Meta's OPENR: https://github.com/facebook/openr Thx, Robert On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 11:03 PM Joel Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > The basic idea is that the alternative distribution protocol is not the > existing IGPs. As such and assuming there is community interest in > addressing the problem, I did not want to prejudge whether the work would > be in rtgwg, in lsr, or in a new working group. Les is correct that once > there is such a protocol, the decision of what data uses which one seems > appropriate to LSR. And if the community decides that it is interested, > and that the work belongs in LSR, then I am happy to work on the offloading > protocol in LSR. But it is not for me to tell the routing community which > working group should own a piece of new protocol work. > > So, rephrasing the above, it seems to me that judging whether there is > interest, and deciding where the work belongs, under the current > structures, to be appropriate for rtgwg. > > If the rtgwg and lsr chairs tell me I misjudged, I am happy to discuss > wherever it belongs. > > Yours, > > Joel > On 10/12/2026 4:57 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > My confusion comes from the point that draft talks about IGPs and proper > WG is LSR WG to discuss this. > > I was asking since you apparently want to proceed with it in RTGWG that > more then IGPs will be covered. And that actually may not be a bad idea as > offloading some stuff from IGP and BGP may land into pub-sub common message > bus for distribution. > > Thx, > r. > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 10:54 PM Joel Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I am making no comment about BGP by the title. I am drafting some text >> to better explain the relationship with BGP. >> >> Regarding the title, it is draft-halpern-rtgwg because problem statement >> dispatch for routing, as I understand it, is an RTGWG function. I didn't >> add -igp- to the filename because I dislike creating long draft names. For >> me, the draft filename never gives the whole story, so I didn't worry about >> being completely precise in the filename. >> >> Yorus, >> >> Joel >> On 10/12/2026 4:51 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote: >> >> Hi Joel, >> >> Can you explain why the title of the draft is not consistent with its >> filename ? >> >> Specifically you are talking about IGP ... but the title says rtgwg ? >> >> Are you trying to say that "The IGP is not a Dump Truck" but BGP is ? >> >> Thx, >> R. >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 4:06 PM Joel Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Calling your attention to a draft I just submitted, with some co-authors. >>> >>> It is a problem statement draft, outlining an approach to improving IGP >>> robustness by moving quasi-stable information not need for routing >>> convergence out of the IGP. The basic question is whether the community is >>> interesting in improving this behavior. If so, we can decide whether it >>> goes to LSR or gets a new working group. >>> Thank you, >>> Joel >>> >>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> Subject: I-D Action: draft-halpern-rtgwg-not-a-dump-truck-00.txt >>> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 07:02:04 -0700 >>> From: [email protected] >>> Reply-To: [email protected] >>> To: [email protected] >>> >>> Internet-Draft draft-halpern-rtgwg-not-a-dump-truck-00.txt is now >>> available. >>> >>> Title: The IGP is not a Dump Truck >>> Authors: Joel Halpern >>> Andrew Alston >>> Name: draft-halpern-rtgwg-not-a-dump-truck-00.txt >>> Pages: 8 >>> Dates: 2026-09-24 >>> >>> Abstract: >>> >>> This document explores addressing the problem of using an IGP to >>> carry arbitrary information, often referred to using the phrase "the >>> IGP is not a dump truck". It describes the kinds of information >>> carried in an IGP and proposes an approach to changing the system. >>> >>> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-halpern-rtgwg-not-a-dump-truck/ >>> >>> There is also an HTML version available at: >>> >>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-halpern-rtgwg-not-a-dump-truck-00.html >>> >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at: >>> rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> I-D-Announce mailing list -- [email protected] >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rtgwg 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]
