Hi, Chris: Let’s discuss your proposal and Les’s responses more further.
First, depending on RFC7356 to solve the potential problem is not practicable—You must define all the new types for possible big IS-IS TLV, and also their relevant sub-TLVs. It’s obviously not the candidate solution. On the contrary, the updated Big-TLV proposal(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-isis-big-tlv/) needs only to define one new generic TLV to solve all possible big-TLV problem, and also their sub-TLVs. Second, regarding to Les’s responses at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/iL-3bd3LC9ZfYftZUyky3bWyX4E/: “ This is why some RFCs left the choice in such cases to the implementor. I mention this only to avoid an argument about trying to retrofit this model to codepoints where this choice was not made. It isn’t worth the trouble and would instantly render some implementations non-conformant without significant benefit.” It’s possible that there are in private negotiation among different vendors when there are interoperability issues from such implicit “what constitutes a key”, such situations will be deteriorated when these TLV/sub-TLVs are sliced according to the MP-TLV proposal. The MP-TLV proposal will amplify such non-conformant issues. It’s time to find one general solution to Big-TLV problem. Aijun Wang China Telecom Aijun Wang China Telecom > On Oct 26, 2024, at 20:09, 【外部账号】Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> wrote: > > Hannes Gredler <han...@gredler.at> writes: > >> Why are we having this discussion again ? >> >> My recollection is that we have a “good enough” solution that is >> deployed and interoperable. >> If you want the “generic solution” then the 16-bit TLVs described in >> RFC7356 is the way to go forward and if there is concern about >> incremental deployment then we should work on this aspect. > > I also believe the 16 bit solution is the way forward if people wish to do > any more on this at this point. > > Thanks, > Chris. > [as wg-member] > > >> >> /hannes >> >> >> >> On 23.10.2024, at 00:50, Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> >> wrote: >> >> Hi,Chris: >> >> Please elaborate clearly your technical reviews for the updates >> of the newly proposed Big-TLV solution. >> >> I can copy the updates again at here and state their effects >> clearly.(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/ >> dxK4Gy1WDR7QCXK6p58xgA0MdUc/ )Please give your analysis before >> you make any conclusions: >> >> >> A new version of Big-TLV document has been >> posted(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-isis-big-tlv), >> to try to give the community one general way to solve the Big TLV problem. >> >> The main changes from the previous versions are the followings: >> 1) Add one "Identification" field within the container TLV(type TBD1), to >> function as the key for any sliced TLV, and is TLV code point independent. >> 2) Add one "Flag" field, define currently the "F" bit to indicate whether >> the piece of container is the first piece(F bit is set to 1), or not (F bit >> is unset) >> 3) Put all the sliced pieces within the newly defined container TLV(type >> TBD1). >> 4) Define some rules for the "Split and Glue" procedures(may be >> re-optimizer later after the WG discussions) >> >> The updated version erases the necessity of defining the "key" >> information for every IS-IS (Possible Big) TLV code point, and also the >> necessity of per-TLV capability announcement. >> >> >> I would like to hear your detail analysis, especially as the WG chairs, >> for the above statements. >> >> Aijun Wang >> China Telecom >> >> >> On Oct 22, 2024, at 20:15, 【外部账号】Christian Hopps >> <cho...@chopps.org> wrote: >> >> >> Those changes don't appear to address what the WG already >> decided against. The view of the WG was that a new Big TLV >> for doing this was not going to work. Given the name of this >> work is Big TLV, that doesn't seem to have changed. So why >> should the WG be spending even more time on a solution they >> already discussed, debated and discarded? >> >> Thanks, >> Chris. >> [as wg chair] >> >> >> >> On Oct 22, 2024, at 06:47, Aijun Wang >> <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, Chris: >> >> >> >> No, we have made some significant updates. >> >> Please refer to https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr >> /dxK4Gy1WDR7QCXK6p58xgA0MdUc/ for more information. >> >> >> >> Aijun Wang >> >> China Telecom >> >> >> >> On Oct 22, 2024, at 17:04, 【外部账号】Christian >> Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Is this the same thing that Huaimo has already >> presented to the WG, that the WG decided was not the >> way it wanted to go? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Chris. >> >> >> >> "Aijun Wang" <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> writes: >> >> >> >> Hi, Yingzhen: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I would like to request 10-15minutes to make the >> presentation for the >> >> “IS-IS Extension for Big TLV” >> >> >> >> The related information are the followings: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Draft Name: IS-IS Extension for Big TLV >> >> >> >> Link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ >> draft-wang-lsr-isis-big-tlv >> >> / >> >> >> >> Presenter: Aijun Wang >> >> >> >> Desired Slot Length: 10-15minutes. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Best Regards >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Aijun Wang >> >> >> >> China Telecom >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 发件人: forwardingalgori...@ietf.org >> >> [mailto:forwardingalgori...@ietf.org] 代表 >> Yingzhen Qu >> >> 发送时间: 2024年10月12日 3:54 >> >> 收件人: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; lsr-chairs >> <lsr-cha...@ietf.org> >> >> 主题: [Lsr] IETF 121 LSR Slot Requests >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The draft agenda for IETF 121 has been posted: >> >> >> >> IETF 121 Meeting Agenda >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The LSR session is scheduled on Thursday Session >> I 09:30-11:30, Nov 7th, 2024. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Please send slot requests to lsr-cha...@ietf.org >> before the end of the day >> >> >> >> Wednesday Oct 23. Please include draft name and >> link, presenter, desired >> >> >> >> slot length including Q&A. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Yingzhen >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org > > <signature.asc>
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org
