Subject: Re: draft-srisuresh-ospf-te-04.txt

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 07:39:52 -0800

Rohit,

I am taking te-wg off the mail list as the following
discussion pertains to OSPF WG only.

I was not present at the Atlanta IETF. But, I looked
at the work group minutes posted on 12/11. The minutes
say that MOSPF and OSPF-flooding reduction are beign dropped
from the charter. I saw no mention of alternate ospf-te
proposals from being dropped.

Same thing goes for the mailing list. I am not aware of any
discussion on the list suggesting alternate ospf-te proposals
being dropped from the charter.

If the WG charter is to cover the OSPF for TE and non-TE, the
charter must include discussion of multiple ospf-te proposals.
If the charter is written to imply that it covers Opaque LSA
based TE extensions only and no alternate ospf-te proposals, then
such an implication is not apparent and should be discussed.
katz-yeung draft has several shortcomings, hasnt completed the
IETF last call and is not an RFC yet. To presuppose the
katz-yeung draft to be the only viable TE protocol and to
exclude alternate proposals is a mistake, IMHO.

Would appreciate your posting the exact wording of the updated
charter for the WG on the mailing list.

regards,
suresh

-----Original Message-----
From: Rohit Dube [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:38 AM
To: Jim Boyle
Cc: Pyda Srisuresh; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: draft-srisuresh-ospf-te-04.txt

FWIW,

The katz-yeung ospf-te draft is scheduled to go to ietf-wide last call
(if it hasn't already).

The ospf-wg charter was recently debated on the ospf mailing wrt an
update. It was also discussed extensively by me, Acee and the routing ADs
and at the ospf-wg meeting in atlanta. The charter agreed upon does not
include any work-item for alternate ospf-te proposals.

Regards,
--rohit.

On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 20:08:20 -0500 (EST) Jim Boyle writes:
=>
=>So it is more of a contribution to the OSPF WG, not the TEWG?
=>I'll ask ietf-secretary to make the corresponding changes.
=>You might want to forward the announce message to OSPF WG.
=>
=>thanks,
=>
=>Jim

---

From: Rohit Dube <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:00:39 -0500

Hello,

Some comments inline.

On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 07:39:52 -0800 "Pyda Srisuresh" writes:
=>Rohit,
=>
=>I am taking te-wg off the mail list as the following
=>discussion pertains to OSPF WG only.
=>
=>I was not present at the Atlanta IETF. But, I looked
=>at the work group minutes posted on 12/11. The minutes
=>say that MOSPF and OSPF-flooding reduction are beign dropped
=>from the charter. I saw no mention of alternate ospf-te
=>proposals from being dropped.

This is correct. I should have been more precise in what I said
- I was trying to convey that we have a broadly agreed upon charter.
While the charter was being discussed on the list or at WG meeting
in Atlanta there was no voiced-concern about not including alternate
ospf-te proposals in the charter.

As Acee and I explained at the Atlanta meeting, before picking
up new charter items, we would like to see interest (and public
comment) from deployers. Could you point to such interest in the
alternate draft - since an alternate ospf-te proposal would have
to be a new charter item at this point.

=>
=>Same thing goes for the mailing list. I am not aware of any
=>discussion on the list suggesting alternate ospf-te proposals
=>being dropped from the charter.

Correct again. Hope my comment above clarifies what I meant.

=>
=>If the WG charter is to cover the OSPF for TE and non-TE, the
=>charter must include discussion of multiple ospf-te proposals.
=>If the charter is written to imply that it covers Opaque LSA
=>based TE extensions only and no alternate ospf-te proposals, then
=>such an implication is not apparent and should be discussed.
=>katz-yeung draft has several shortcomings, hasnt completed the
=>IETF last call and is not an RFC yet. To presuppose the
=>katz-yeung draft to be the only viable TE protocol and to
=>exclude alternate proposals is a mistake, IMHO.

You are welcome to argue this out on the mailing list. In its favour,
katz-yeung has multiple (probably > 10 by now) implementations many
of which are known to inter-operate and are deployed in live networks.
While I would agree with you that there are shortcomings in katz-yeung,
any competing draft has to be more than a little bit better to overcome
the experience implementors and deployers have obtained with this solution.

=>
=>Would appreciate your posting the exact wording of the updated
=>charter for the WG on the mailing list.

Attached below. I have requested the ADs to post this
on the ospf-wg web page so that it is easier to access.

=>
=>regards,
=>suresh
=>

Best,
--rohit.

---

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 08:53:19 -0800

> charter must include discussion of multiple ospf-te proposals.

I don't buy this argument.  There is no reason to discuss multiple
proposals for *every* work item.

In particular, the MPLS and CCAMP WGs henceforth will discuss only
one TE signaling protocol (and one non-TE signaling protocol).

If there are deficiencies in the current TE document *and there is
WG consensus on that* (the authors' opinions alone don't suffice),
then one can consider alternative proposals.

Kireeti.

---

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 22:20:52 -0800

My comments below.

regards,
suresh

-----Original Message-----
From: Rohit Dube [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 8:01 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: draft-srisuresh-ospf-te-04.txt

Hello,

Some comments inline.

[SURESH] Thank you for the clarification.

        Typically, when a WG revises its charter (or) when a new
      WG is formed, for that matter, a mission statement
      is created describing its charter. That is followed by
      a list of Goals/Milestones. The items under the Goals
      section will naturally have fallen under the WG charter
      mission statement.

      I was looking for the revised OSPF WG mission statement
      to bring up the relevance of the OSPF-TE draft to the WG.
      I couldnt guess you were going about the other way around
      (i.e., going from the Goals/milestones and dropped list
      to imply a misson statement).

      A charter is incomplete without a mission statement; and is
      bound to be problematic for every new draft that finds its
      way. I suggest, you prepare a mission statement for the WG
      before the charter is finalized.

[SURESH] Rohit - As you know, implementation, deployment and
      interoperability are not a requirement for a  proposed
      standard. I.e., this line of argument should not be a
      gating item for a draft to become a proposed standard.
      I am sure, the ADs will attest to that.

      Having said that, we do have at least one implementation
      and verfication of portions of the OSPF-TE in an MPLS
      packet network. Spepcifically, the following are implemented
      and verified in a network consisting of OSPF-TE and native
      OSPF routers.
       a) The Hello protocol(Detection of TE-neighbor) and
          the selective flooding as a result.
       b) TE-router LSA,
       c) TE-incremental-link-update LSA, and the Sequence number
          generation. TE-router LSA when updated after 30 minutes
          assumes a sequence number larger than the last updated link.
       d) TE-LSDB generation; No hindrance to native OSPF protocol
          and the native LSDB.

> 3. Following
=>

[SURESH] OK. I will repeat the request - Please provide a revised
         charter statement for the WG.

         I get the impression that there is too much to handle
         for this WG as it is - with V2 bug fixes, BCPs, V3 etc.
         This in turn is impacting what gets done for newer
         items such as TE extensions to the OSPF. Several
         important items are falling off the radar list.

         My recommendation would be to form a new OSPF-TE work
         group to focus exclusively on the TE extensions to OSPF.

=>

[SURESH] Rohit - Why do you say that the OSPF-TE is a little
        bit better than the katz-yeung draft? There is hardly
      anything in common between the two drafts. Perhaps, the
      only thing in common is that TE link metrics are
      represented as TLVs in both drafts. However, the TLV usage
      is different between the two drafts. The OSPF-TE design
      is driven by different motivations and is based on a
      different paradigm than the katz-yeung draft. The
      katz-yeung draft is simply not as comprehensive as the
      OSPF-TE draft.

      I would urge you to review the OSPF-TE draft and send us your
      thoughts and comments on specific items.
=>
=>Would appreciate your posting the exact wording of the updated
=>charter for the WG on the mailing list.

=>
=>regards,
=>suresh
=>

Best,
--rohit.

regards,
suresh

---

From: Rohit Dube <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 10:52:46 -0500

[..]

=>[SURESH] Thank you for the clarification.
=>
=>      Typically, when a WG revises its charter (or) when a new
=>      WG is formed, for that matter, a mission statement
=>      is created describing its charter. That is followed by
=>      a list of Goals/Milestones. The items under the Goals
=>      section will naturally have fallen under the WG charter
=>      mission statement.
=>
=>      I was looking for the revised OSPF WG mission statement
=>      to bring up the relevance of the OSPF-TE draft to the WG.
=>      I couldnt guess you were going about the other way around
=>      (i.e., going from the Goals/milestones and dropped list
=>      to imply a misson statement).
=>
=>      A charter is incomplete without a mission statement; and is
=>      bound to be problematic for every new draft that finds its
=>      way. I suggest, you prepare a mission statement for the WG
=>      before the charter is finalized.

The mission of the current charter (as has been explained multiple
times) is to clear of existing items of the table. I don't believe
anything grander is in order at this time.

=>
=>[SURESH] Rohit - As you know, implementation, deployment and
=>      interoperability are not a requirement for a  proposed
=>      standard. I.e., this line of argument should not be a
=>      gating item for a draft to become a proposed standard.
[snip]

Sure this is well known. But pragmatism dictates that there
is no point in pursuing something which is either "only a
little bit better than an existing solution" or "has little
interest or support" or both.

=>[SURESH] OK. I will repeat the request - Please provide a revised
=>         charter statement for the WG.

I believe I have done as best as I could above and in previous mails
on the topic of the charter.

=>
=>         I get the impression that there is too much to handle
=>         for this WG as it is - with V2 bug fixes, BCPs, V3 etc.
=>         This in turn is impacting what gets done for newer
=>         items such as TE extensions to the OSPF. Several
=>         important items are falling off the radar list.
=>
=>         My recommendation would be to form a new OSPF-TE work
=>         group to focus exclusively on the TE extensions to OSPF.
[snip]

You are welcome to take this to the Routing-Area ADs since it is
neither in my power or (in my opinion) in the ospf-wg's interest
to do such a thing.

Summary: There is insufficient interest to proceed any further with the
         alternate ospf-te proposal in the ospf wg. [If anybody other
         than the authors disagree with this please post to the list
         indicating why you think an alternate ospf-te proposal is needed.]

--rohit.