Appeal for forwarding of draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv (Aijun Wang) - 2025-04-29
Appeal - 2025-04-29
From: "Aijun Wang" <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
Subject: [IAB] Appeal for forwarding of draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv
Date: April 29, 2025 at 8:10:31 PM PDT
To: <tpauly@apple.com>
Cc: iab@iab.org, wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn
Hi, Tommy:
MP-TLV Draft [1] has just passed the IESG’ review and approved by IESG for its publication.
But, there are several unsolved challenges, found along its LSR WGLC process, or during the IESG Last Call, or IESG experts’ review.
I have summarized these unsolved challenges at draft[2], give also the detail examples(update it along the discussions) to illustrate the issues, but receive no clear, determined responses from the authors, the LSR chairs, the ADs of routing area.
These challenges are so obvious and are critical to the deployment of such solution within the operator network.
Leave them to the operator to tackle such issues will only lead more chaos for the operation of the network.
Then, according to descriptions at https://www.iab.org/role/appeals/, I would like the IAB to take the following actions to solve these challenges:
1) Appointed the experts, especially the Routing ADs who participate actively the discussions of this document, to response the challenges described in [2], especially the illustrated examples.
2) Hold one hearing meeting, to invite the IAB members to vote on the Face2Face discussions of the unsolved challenges[2] and their responses.
3) If the IAB vote against the forwarding of this document, return it to LSR WG, or abandon it, let the LSR WG find other solution.
4) Add one expert from the operator to act as LSR chair, or Routing AD, to guarantee the applicability of IETF standard, especially routing related standards, in their final destination---the real operator network-----not instead of the IETF repository only.
Currently, the LSR chairs and Routing ADs are all from the vendors(I admire the experts from the vendors), there are lots of phenomena that the vendors prefer only the solutions, but not the deployment possibility, challenges and interoperability issues that are more important for the useful, market accepted RFCs.
[1]: MP-TLV draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv/
[2]: Unsolved Challenges of MP-TLV: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-unsolved-challenge-of-mp-tlv/
Best Regards
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
On May 1, 2025, at 04:41, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com> wrote:
Hello Aijun,
The IAB acknowledges receipt of this appeal, and will discuss our response.
As a point of clarification: can you confirm that what you are appealing is the IESG approving publication of draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv, on the grounds that the standards procedures were not followed? Based on RFC 2026, the IAB’s role in appeals is to determine if the standards process was followed.
Best,
Tommy
From: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
Subject: Re: Appeal for forwarding of draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv
Date: April 30, 2025 at 5:05:17 PM PDT
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Cc: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>, iab@iab.org
Hi, Tommy:
Thanks for the responses.
I am appealing that the IESG doesn’t accomplish its roles as described in https://www.ietf.org/process/process/role-iesg-standards-process/ that “ there are no outstanding engineering issues that should be addressed before publication.”
The reason that lead to such results is that the comprises of LSR Chairs and ADs of the routing area—Currently, they are all from vendors—-and as I pointed out in previous mail, the output documents of the Routing Area are having less and less influences on the industry because there is no one responsible AD considered, guaranteed the requirements, challenge and interoperability issues of proposed solutions.
The MP-TLV document is the most outstanding representative document.
Then, I would like to ask the IAB to let the responsible AD to answer explicitly the unsolved challenges, hold one public hearing meeting to debate these issues, let the IAB’ members to vote its forwarding or back to LSR WG, based on the open discussions.
And I hope also to change the administrative structure of LSR WG and Routing Area to let the operators guarantee also the threshold of routing area output documents.
Aijun Wang
China Telecom