Appeal to the forwarding of draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce (Aijun Wang) - 2025-06-17
Appeal - 2025-06-17
From: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
To: 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Appeal to the forwarding of draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 16:02:06 +0800
CC: 'lsr' <lsr@ietf.org>, 'rtg-ads' <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
Hi, IESG:
Again, the LSR WG tries to forward one problematic document.
I am contacting you to formally appeal the forwarding of this document (I am
cc'ing the LSR WG/Routing ADs for the sake of transparency and openness).
Appellants:
Aijun Wang mailto:wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn
Description of the Disputes
Draft [1] passed the WGLC, with the unsolved deficiency designs.
I have summarized the remaining issues in document [2], which describes in detail the following aspects:
a) The proposal doesn't work even in simple scenario.(section 2 of [2])
b) The proposal is based on one flawed feature(section 3 of [2])
c) No explicit UPA withdrawn signal(section 4 of [2])
The related discussions for the above issues are here:
Issue a), the author admits they needs to update the corresponding RFCs (although no any description to propose how to update), but it is still problematic. [3]
Issue b), the author hasn't answered the controversy scenario clearly until now [4]
Issue c), current proposal can't distinguish the two cases that lead to the end of UPA advertisement. [5]
The responses from our AD [6], make some progress----I removed the unimportant issues in this appeal to IESG---but doesn't address the above technical issues
This is another example, that the proposal is implementable but can't be deployed in operator's network.
Requested Actions
-
Please let the authors, or any other experts that support to forward this document answer the above three issues.
-
If they can't be solved, please abandon this document [1].
-
It is necessary to let the experts from the operators, to add/update the administration of the LSR WG, to gauge and raise the bar of the document output from the LSR WG.
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce/
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-reasons-of-abandon-upa-proposal/
[3] Even updating the related RFC, the problem can't be solved: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/v_RbVRf5sXwqhYnik2Kmr_5qu_8/
[4] LSInfinity feature within OSPF is flawed: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/C0_vMZmk0e9uzEWayRYiIakQXtc/
[5] Explicit Withdrawn is necessary: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/Ztpgb_DMYi2hwjDi4DxFfG1kbx4/
[6] AD's responses doesn't address the remaining technical issues: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/WnRKUKOFIKP4tuHc3mORqLLs-KU/
Best Regards
Aijun Wang
China Telecom