OSPF Refresh and Flooding Reduction in Stable Topologies
draft-pillay-esnault-ospf-flooding-07
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Harald Alvestrand |
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for David Kessens |
2005-07-18
|
07 | Bill Fenner | Note field has been cleared by Bill Fenner |
2005-07-18
|
07 | Bill Fenner | In authors' 48 hours: From: RFC Editor Subject: authors 48 hours: RFC 4136 NOW AVAILABLE Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 … In authors' 48 hours: From: RFC Editor Subject: authors 48 hours: RFC 4136 NOW AVAILABLE Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:20:03 -0700 To: padma0528@gmail.com |
2004-09-21
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2004-09-20
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2004-09-20
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2004-09-20
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2004-09-17
|
07 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2004-09-16 |
2004-09-16
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Amy Vezza |
2004-09-16
|
07 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] Position for David Kessens has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by David Kessens |
2004-09-16
|
07 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot comment] Reviewed by Joel Halpern, Gen-ART Given the history of this document, it is not enough to hold the document. His review: This draft … [Ballot comment] Reviewed by Joel Halpern, Gen-ART Given the history of this document, it is not enough to hold the document. His review: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review. 1) There is no description of what kind of information is "stable", how a router would decide what is "stable", or even for a human being what kinds of criteria ought to be applied to select information to be flooded in accordance with this draft. (I realize that there are skilled practitioners who believe that there is no need for refreshes of unchanged material. But if the goal is to change the base behavior of OSPF, rather more explanation for the existing behavior and why it is reasonable to change it would be required. The draft states that it applies only to "stable" information.) 2) The document is inconsistent about whether this is a router behavior or an interface behavior. Most of the description indicates that an originating router decides to flood some information with the "do not age" bit set. However, there are multiple references to "flood-reduction interfaces. Since a router may not send different versions of the same LSA on different interfaces, and since the description of forwarding of LSAs must be insensitive to the DNA bit (and is correctly described as such), it is not clear what the interface setting is intended to accomplish. 3) As a minor point, the description of "forced flooding" leaves the reader to guess what is intended (probably, refresh even when there is no change at an interval larger than the normal refresh interface.) This should be explicitly described. |
2004-09-16
|
07 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Harald Alvestrand has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Harald Alvestrand |
2004-09-16
|
07 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck |
2004-09-16
|
07 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot comment] Reviewed by Joel Halpern, Gen-ART His review: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review. 1) … [Ballot comment] Reviewed by Joel Halpern, Gen-ART His review: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review. 1) There is no description of what kind of information is "stable", how a router would decide what is "stable", or even for a human being what kinds of criteria ought to be applied to select information to be flooded in accordance with this draft. (I realize that there are skilled practitioners who believe that there is no need for refreshes of unchanged material. But if the goal is to change the base behavior of OSPF, rather more explanation for the existing behavior and why it is reasonable to change it would be required. The draft states that it applies only to "stable" information.) 2) The document is inconsistent about whether this is a router behavior or an interface behavior. Most of the description indicates that an originating router decides to flood some information with the "do not age" bit set. However, there are multiple references to "flood-reduction interfaces. Since a router may not send different versions of the same LSA on different interfaces, and since the description of forwarding of LSAs must be insensitive to the DNA bit (and is correctly described as such), it is not clear what the interface setting is intended to accomplish. 3) As a minor point, the description of "forced flooding" leaves the reader to guess what is intended (probably, refresh even when there is no change at an interval larger than the normal refresh interface.) This should be explicitly described. |
2004-09-16
|
07 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot discuss] I am willing to be talked out of this because it's a "late surprise" - ie I missed this on the previous round. … [Ballot discuss] I am willing to be talked out of this because it's a "late surprise" - ie I missed this on the previous round. But the review I got (see comment) worries me - in particular the part about no guidelines for deciding what kinds of info it's reasonable to declare "static". Feedback, please... |
2004-09-16
|
07 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Harald Alvestrand by Harald Alvestrand |
2004-09-15
|
07 | David Kessens | [Ballot discuss] Anyways, I still would really like to see some more wording on applicability of this feature. 1) when to turn it on (how … [Ballot discuss] Anyways, I still would really like to see some more wording on applicability of this feature. 1) when to turn it on (how big does a network need to be that this start to make sense?)/when to turn it off, is my network really designed properly if I need this ? 2) reason why it is initially turned off by default This doesn't need to be a lengthy paragraph, however some wording should be there to address the issues above. |
2004-09-15
|
07 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman |
2004-09-09
|
07 | Bill Fenner | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2004-09-16 by Bill Fenner |
2004-09-09
|
07 | Bill Fenner | [Note]: 'Back to try to talk to David about his DISCUSS' added by Bill Fenner |
2004-06-24
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2004-06-24
|
07 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] Position for David Kessens has been changed to Discuss from Undefined by David Kessens |
2004-06-24
|
07 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jon Peterson by Jon Peterson |
2004-06-23
|
07 | David Kessens | [Ballot comment] From the ops directorate (Pekka Savola): - abstract has been numbered - specific IPR notices are not allowed in the documents - non-updated … [Ballot comment] From the ops directorate (Pekka Savola): - abstract has been numbered - specific IPR notices are not allowed in the documents - non-updated boilerplates |
2004-06-23
|
07 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens |
2004-06-23
|
07 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie |
2004-06-21
|
07 | Steven Bellovin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Steve Bellovin by Steve Bellovin |
2004-06-10
|
07 | Bill Fenner | [Note]: 'Already reviewed in 6/2003; please don''t re-review unless showstoppers - want to clear ops-dir comment (see document log, there''s no ballot). IESG RED TEAM' … [Note]: 'Already reviewed in 6/2003; please don''t re-review unless showstoppers - want to clear ops-dir comment (see document log, there''s no ballot). IESG RED TEAM' added by Bill Fenner |
2004-06-10
|
07 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Bill Fenner |
2004-06-10
|
07 | Bill Fenner | Ballot has been issued by Bill Fenner |
2004-06-10
|
07 | Bill Fenner | Created "Approve" ballot |
2004-06-10
|
07 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2004-06-10
|
07 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2004-06-10
|
07 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2004-06-10
|
07 | Bill Fenner | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2004-06-24 by Bill Fenner |
2004-06-10
|
07 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation by Bill Fenner |
2004-06-10
|
07 | Bill Fenner | [Note]: 'Already reviewed in 6/2003; please don''t re-review unless showstoppers - want to clear ops-dir comment (see document log, there''s no ballot).' added by Bill … [Note]: 'Already reviewed in 6/2003; please don''t re-review unless showstoppers - want to clear ops-dir comment (see document log, there''s no ballot).' added by Bill Fenner |
2004-06-10
|
07 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Bill Fenner |
2003-07-03
|
07 | Natalia Syracuse | State Changes to Publication Requested from AD is watching by Syracuse, Natalia |
2003-06-17
|
07 | Bill Fenner | WG has a new version that they would like to Last Call |
2003-06-17
|
07 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to AD is watching from IESG Evaluation by Fenner, Bill |
2003-06-17
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-pillay-esnault-ospf-flooding-07.txt |
2003-06-11
|
07 | Bill Fenner |
|
2003-06-11
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-pillay-esnault-ospf-flooding-06.txt |
2003-05-23
|
07 | Bill Fenner | Er, that wasn't what I *tried* to do =) |
2003-05-23
|
07 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Fenner, Bill |
2003-05-23
|
07 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from AD Evaluation by Fenner, Bill |
2003-03-28
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-pillay-esnault-ospf-flooding-05.txt |
2003-02-14
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Cisco's Patent Statement pertaining to OSPF Refresh and Flooding Reduction in Stable Topologies (draft-pillay-esnault-ospf-flooding-nn.txt) | |
2003-02-04
|
07 | Bill Fenner | Bill to review updated draft. |
2003-02-04
|
07 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to AD Evaluation :: AD Followup from AD Evaluation :: Revised ID Needed by Fenner, Bill |
2003-01-31
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-pillay-esnault-ospf-flooding-04.txt |
2002-11-04
|
07 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to AD Evaluation :: Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation :: External Party by Fenner, Bill |
2002-04-17
|
07 | (System) | Intended Status has been changed to Informational from Request |
2002-03-12
|
07 | (System) | See https://irg.attlabs.net/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13 for detailed comments |
2002-03-12
|
07 | (System) | State Changes to New Version Needed (WG/Author) from AD Evaluation … State Changes to New Version Needed (WG/Author) from AD Evaluation by IESG Member |
2002-03-12
|
07 | (System) | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Pre AD … State Changes to AD Evaluation from Pre AD Evaluation by IESG Member |
2002-02-28
|
07 | (System) | Draft Added by IESG Member |
2001-03-06
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-pillay-esnault-ospf-flooding-03.txt |
2000-11-30
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-pillay-esnault-ospf-flooding-02.txt |
2000-05-15
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-pillay-esnault-ospf-flooding-01.txt |
1999-11-29
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-pillay-esnault-ospf-flooding-00.txt |