> On Nov 16, 2021, at 10:36 PM, Aijun Wang <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, 
>  
> The followings are the responses for the comments on PUAM 
> draft(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-08)
>  
> Les:      The comment I want to make, I think the discussion on the
>           list highlighted the fact that there's an open question,
>           independent of whether we use the prefix unreachable
>           draft or the Event Notification draft, as to whether this
>           problem should be solved by the IGP or whether it should be
>           solved by BGP, or in some other way. And I think the logical
>           way to proceed on this is to get the consensus of the working
>           group as to whether an IGP solution is desired first, then
>           after we reach consensus on that, then we can start talking
>           about which approach is the better approach. Which one
>           should be adopted?
> 【WAJ】The problem is occurred due to the summary action by the ABR router in 
> IGP, it should be solved by IGP itself.
> As discussed earlier on the list, the possible use case is not limited to BGP 
> fast convergence.
> Based on the above considerations, it is not appropriated solved via BGP. 
>  
> Chris H:  Chair hat on. You've been asking for adoption for a while.
>           The event notification draft is new. I agree with Les that
>           in a perfect world that would be the case, but asking for
>           adoption is one way to answer the question. It may be not
>           the perfect way to answer that question, but it is one way.
>           I agree without my chair hat on, I'm not sure we need this,
>           but it's not for me to say by fiat. Acee did put something
>           out on the list to try to engage people again. And I don't
>           think a lot got said.
> 【WAJ】we have several round discussions for this topic but there is always no 
> conclusion at the end. 
>        Can the expert that reluctant to accept the new idea to give some 
> specific questions/problems for the current solution?
>       Or else it is not helpful for the solve of the existing problem.
>        Initiate the adoption call maybe the best way to let the experts 
> express their opinions? 
>        We would like to hear the specific and detail comments for the current 
> solutions, not just general comments.
>  
> Acee:     I didn't see much support other than from the authors. I
>           saw one non-author support on the event notification. 
> 【WAJ】Does anyone not agree what we analyze/summarize at the presentation 
> material for the two solutions? 
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/112/materials/slides-112-lsr-05-puam-stublink-00.pdf,
>  the 5th slide)
>  
> Chris:    Everyone has a right to ask for an adoption. Everyone has a
>           right to say we shouldn't adopt this and there are the
>           reasons. We've let people to express opinions, without
>           seeing a lot of negative opinions it's hard not to just grant
>           the adoption call.
> 【WAJ】I agree.
>  
> Tony P:   I think this is all making a trash can out of the IGP. One
>           possible solution is to ban or encouraged maybe everyone with
>           these kind of suggestions to go towards the service instance
>           stuff or whatever we call it, which I think is a good idea.
>           Just run a power line up and much lower priority. Don't trash
>           the main protocol that holds the whole thing together.
> 【WAJ】Do you consider the deployment complexity for independent service 
> instance to transfer such thing? And also the interaction on the device among 
> the main IGP instance and the service instances? It’s the fault of the main 
> protocol, and should be solved by the main protocol.
>  
> Chris:    Great comment for the adoption call. As a WG member, I agree.

This makes it seem like I'm saying that I agree with your response. I'd strike 
that "As a WG member, I agree".

Thanks,
Chris.


>  
>  
>  
> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem 
> (acee)
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 2:56 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Lsr] IETF 112 LSR Meeting Minutes
>  
> The IETF 112 LSR Meeting Minutes have been uploaded. Thanks to Yingzhen Qu 
> for taking them!!!
>  
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/112/materials/minutes-112-lsr-00
>  
> The IETF 112 LSR Meeting MeetEcho recording is available here:
>  
> https://play.conf.meetecho.com/Playout/?session=IETF112-LSR-20211111-1200
>  
> Thanks,
> Acee

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to