Re: [Bier] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bier-te-isis-01.txt

["Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>]

Oops – should have said 7 drafts – forgot to count both ospf/ospfv3.
Sorry Acee. 😊

   Les

From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 9:20 PM
To: [e-mail]; Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Bier] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bier-te-isis-01.txt


Sandy -



You could do this per protocol or per function or a single draft for everything.
I suspect if you ask three different people you will get three different answers. 😊



Given that the BGP-LS content is protocol independent and the actual content of each functional draft is modest, I am inclined to say go for a single draft that combines all of the current 5 drafts (including expired BGP-LS).

But any approach which reduces the number of drafts would be an improvement.



   Les



> -----Original Message-----

> From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 8:13 PM

> To: acee=[e-mail]<mailto:acee=[e-mail]>;

> ginsberg=[e-mail]<mailto:ginsberg=[e-mail]>

> Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;

> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> Subject: Re: [Bier] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bier-te-isis-01.txt

>

> Hi Acee, Les,

> Thank you very much for your suggestion.

> I agree with you that the IGP extension drafts need to be combined.

> IMO the drafts maybe combined by function. That is the BP advertisement

> for all the IGP protocols can be combined into one draft, the BIFT-ID

> advertisement for all the IGP protocols can be combined into another draft,

> do you think it's a reasonable way? But it's just my opinion, I am not sure

> what other people thinking.

> And in fact there is a BGP-LS extension draft already:

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cz-bier-bgp-ls-bier-te-ext/, though it's

> expired now.

> Best regards,

> Sandy

>

>

> ------------------Original------------------

> From: AceeLindem(acee) <acee=[e-mail]<mailto:acee=[e-mail]>>

> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)

> <ginsberg=[e-mail]<mailto:ginsberg=[e-mail]>>;张征00007940;[e-mail]

> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;

> Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;

> Date: 2022年08月03日 22:37

> Subject: Re: [Bier] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bier-te-isis-01.txt

> That would be another alternative - incorporate the additional extensions

> into the base drafts.

> Thanks,

> Acee

> On 8/3/22, 10:34 AM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

> wrote:

> Acee -

> My comment was only on the two IS-IS drafts:

> draft-ietf-bier-te-isis

> draft-zwx-bier-te-isis-extensions

> Your comment was apparently regarding all the IGP drafts.

> Fewer drafts is better in this case - and if BIER WG wants to follow the LSR

> model and combine IS-IS/OSPF/OSPFv3 into a single draft I am happy to

> support that.

> But even if BIER wants to maintain drafts per protocol, I see no reason to

> have multiple drafts per protocol for this functionality.

> I also support Acee's suggestion to Include BGP-LS support in the same draft.

> Les

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

> > Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 7:27 AM

> > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=[e-mail]<mailto:ginsberg=[e-mail]>>;

> > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> > Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)

> > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> > Subject: Re: [Bier] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bier-te-isis-01.txt

> >

> >

> >

> > On 8/3/22, 10:06 AM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"

> > <ginsberg=[e-mail]<mailto:ginsberg=[e-mail]>> wrote:

> >

> >     I tend to agree w Acee's comment.

> >     Two drafts seems excessive here.

> >

> > Actually there are 3 (IS-IS, OSPF, OSPFv3), not even counting the inevitable

> > BGP-LS draft.

> >

> > One point I made before on the cut and paste between drafts. In

> > OSPF/OSPFv3, Sub-TLVs are referred to as Sub-TLVs no matter what their

> > level of nesting. If we would have adopted the sub-sub....-TLV notation,

> we

> > have many levels of nesting for the CCAMP TE LSAs for Optical

> technologies.

> >

> > Thanks,

> > Acee

> >

> >     If the argument is that you want to keep the IS-IS  MPLS related stuff in a

> > separate draft, I point out that RFC 8401 did NOT do that.

> >

> >         Les

> >

> >     > -----Original Message-----

> >     > From: BIER <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)

> >     > Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 4:10 AM

> >     > To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> >     > Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;

> > ginsberg=[e-mail]<mailto:ginsberg=[e-mail]>;

> >     > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> >     > Subject: Re: [Bier] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bier-te-isis-01.txt

> >     >

> >     > Hi Sandy,

> >     > Why didn't you put all the IGP extensions in the same draft in different

> >     > sections? It is basically the same two Sub-TLVs with different IANA

> >     > considerations. When you consolidate, can you also add the BGP-LS

> >     > extension?

> >     > Thanks,

> >     > Acee

> >     >

> >     > On 8/3/22, 4:11 AM, "BIER on behalf of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>"

> <bier-

> >     > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

> >     >

> >     >     Hi Toerless,

> >     >     The BIFT-ID advertisement as you said in the email, has been defined

> in

> >     > these drafts:

> >     >     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zwx-bier-te-isis-extensions/

> >     >     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zwx-bier-te-ospf-extensions/

> >     >     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zwx-bier-te-ospfv3-<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zwx-bier-te-ospfv3-extensions/>

> extensions/<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zwx-bier-te-ospfv3-extensions/>

> >     >     And these drafts was presented in IETF114 BIER WG meeting.

> >     >     Looking forward for your comments and suggestions.

> >     >     Best regards,

> >     >     Sandy

> >     >

> >     >     ------------------Original------------------

> >     >     From: ToerlessEckert <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

> >     >     To: Huaimo Chen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;

> >     >     Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)

> >     > <ginsberg=[e-mail]<mailto:ginsberg=[e-mail]>>;[e-mail]

> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;

> >     >     Date: 2022年08月03日 12:05

> >     >     Subject: Re: [Bier] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bier-te-isis-01.txt

> >     >     Hey folks

> >     >     I am trying to wrap my head around how one would use these IS-IS

> >     > extensions for BIER-TE,

> >     >     and what if any of such semantic information might help the

> > document...

> >     >     The way i assume this extension to be used is that some poor

> >     > system/operator assigns BIER-TE

> >     >     bits and configures the actual BIER-TE BIFT entries with

> > forward_connected

> >     > entries to

> >     >     the neighbors. Similarily to how the same poor system/operator

> would

> >     > configure interface

> >     >     IP addresses on routers. This IS-IS work does not help to eliminate

> any

> > of

> >     > this initial provisioning. [Yes/No]

> >     >     The way the IS-IS kicks in is to disseminate the information from

> those

> >     > forward_connected BIER-TE

> >     >     BIFT entries across the domain, so that for example ingres-PE could

> >     > calculate BIER-TE paths through the

> >     >     topology. [Yes/No].

> >     >     If i am on the right track, then let me continue:

> >     >     The first detail is that these IS-IS entries will seemingly have some

> >     > elements from rfc5303

> >     >     that identify the interface and/or neighbor. So those need to match

> > what

> >     > would be found in

> >     >     the BIFT. I am not sure if it is obvious to every implementer how to

> > achieve

> >     > that without

> >     >     additional guidance. For example i guess we ALSO need to have the

> IS-

> > IS

> >     > signaling for the

> >     >     label ranges for the SD/SI in BIER. Have we checked thart we simply

> >     > should/can use them also

> >     >     for the SD that we use for BIER-TE ? I hope so, but i can not

> remember

> > the

> >     > discussion.

> >     >     Likewise for BIER-TE over L2 (not MPLS), we have the dependency

> > against

> >     > picking one particular

> >     >     bift-id encoding, and the "i don't know which" signaling we may have

> to

> >     > support it (could

> >     >     of course be all manual configured).

> >     >     Yes, this is just dependencies to make a deployment work, not

> > necessarily

> >     > something an

> >     >     IGP specialist wants to see in an IGP draft/RFC, but i hope we can

> have

> > this

> >     > more

> >     >     holistic discussion here ;-)

> >     >     So, then RFC5305 has all those wonderful adjacency parameters to

> help

> > for

> >     > example ingres

> >     >     PE CSPF calculations. And i remember those from  RSVP-TE days. But

> > now

> >     > the ISIS draft

> >     >     proposal introduces the BAR/IPA parameters, and i have never seen

> > those

> >     > being mentioned

> >     >     or used in conjunction with TE in general or CSPF specifically. So it

> > would be

> >     > great

> >     >     to have at least one example of how to use PAR/IPA be explained

> > here. If

> >     > we can not

> >     >     construct such examples, then BIER/IPA may be leftovers from the

> IS-

> > IS

> >     > encodings for

> >     >     BIER, where of course there is no CSPF and the like...

> >     >     Next question: Would it be possible to express with these IS-IS

> option

> > the

> >     > forward_routed()

> >     >     I think it would be great if we would build the IS-IS extensions such

> that

> >     > that is possible,

> >     >     because forward_routed entries can be a great help to get along with

> > the

> >     > available bits.

> >     >     I also would need to get my head around those IS-IS pseudonodes...

> if

> >     > anyone has an example,

> >     >     that would be great.

> >     >     Thanks so much!

> >     >     Toerless

> >     >     On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 02:58:53AM +0000, Huaimo Chen wrote:

> >     >     > Hi Les,

> >     >     >

> >     >     >     Thank you very much for your valuable comments.

> >     >     >     I have addressed them in the updated draft (uploaded).

> >     >     >     My responses are also inline below with [HC].

> >     >     >

> >     >     > Best Regards,

> >     >     > Huaimo

> >     >     > -----Original Message-----

> >     >     > From: BIER <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg

> >     > (ginsberg)

> >     >     > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2022 4:59 PM

> >     >     > To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> >     >     > Subject: Re: [Bier] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bier-te-isis-01.txt

> >     >     >

> >     >     > Some pedantic comments on this draft:

> >     >     >

> >     >     > For the new BIER-TE sub-TLV:

> >     >     >

> >     >     > 1)The relevant registry has been renamed to be "IS-IS Sub-TLVs for

> > TLVs

> >     > Advertising Neighbor Information". Please use this new name.

> >     >     >

> >     >

> >

> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww

> >     > w.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fisis-tlv-codepoints%2Fisis-tlv-

> >     > codepoints.xhtml%23isis-tlv-codepoints-advertising-neighbor-

> >     >

> >

> information&amp;data=05%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7C5b

> >     >

> >

> bd38c256024261ea5608da71a546c0%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%

> >     >

> >

> 7C1%7C0%7C637947251926210034%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoi

> >     >

> >

> MC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C300

> >     >

> >

> 0%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=ybC6zOJkG1sRe%2FQosV23MElysXHkg7jnHS70N

> >     > %2Bf7bpE%3D&amp;reserved=0

> >     >     > [HC]: I have renamed it as you suggested.

> >     >     >

> >     >     > 2)Please do NOT insert padding to keep content aligned on a 4 byte

> >     > boundary. This may be useful for OSPF, but it is not for IS-IS as TLVs are

> > NOT

> >     > aligned inside an LSP. All you are doing is wasting space - which is

> precious

> > in

> >     > IS-IS given the limited LSP space.

> >     >     > [HC]: Removed padding.

> >     >     >

> >     >     > 3)You say in Section 2:

> >     >     >

> >     >     > "Note that if each of BitPosition

> >     >     >    and DrEndBitPosition uses more than 2 octets, we use 4 or more

> > octets

> >     >     >    for each of them."

> >     >     >

> >     >     > I do not see how the receiver of the sub-TLV could tell whether the

> 2

> >     > octet or 4 octet encoding was sent as you have nothing that specifies

> the

> >     > length of these fields.

> >     >     > You can't use the total length of the sub-TLV as it could include

> > optional

> >     > sub-sub-TLVs.

> >     >     >

> >     >     > ??

> >     >     > [HC]: Deleted the quoted text.

> >     >     >

> >     >     > 4)In IANA section, I do not know why you specified "N" for TLVs 23

> > and

> >     > 223.

> >     >     > While RFC 5311 (which defines these TLVs) is not popular, if there

> was

> > an

> >     > implementation, I see no reason why it should be invalid to send the

> > BIER-TE

> >     > info in these TLVs.

> >     >     > [HC]: Changed "n" to "y" for TLVs 23 and 223.

> >     >     >

> >     >     > Thanx.

> >     >     >

> >     >     >     Les

> >     >     >

> >     >     >

> >     >     > > -----Original Message-----

> >     >     > > From: BIER <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of internet-

> >     > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> >     >     > > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2022 12:13 PM

> >     >     > > To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> >     >     > > Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> >     >     > > Subject: [Bier] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bier-te-isis-01.txt

> >     >     > >

> >     >     > >

> >     >     > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts

> >     > directories.

> >     >     > > This draft is a work item of the Bit Indexed Explicit Replication WG

> > of

> >     > the IETF.

> >     >     > >

> >     >     > >         Title           : IS-IS Extensions for BIER-TE

> >     >     > >         Authors         : Huaimo Chen

> >     >     > >                           Mike McBride

> >     >     > >                           Aijun Wang

> >     >     > >                           Gyan S. Mishra

> >     >     > >                           Yanhe Fan

> >     >     > >                           Lei Liu

> >     >     > >                           Xufeng Liu

> >     >     > >   Filename        : draft-ietf-bier-te-isis-01.txt

> >     >     > >   Pages           : 7

> >     >     > >   Date            : 2022-07-29

> >     >     > >

> >     >     > > Abstract:

> >     >     > >    This document describes IS-IS extensions for distributing

> >     >     > >    BitPositions configured on the links in "Bit Index Explicit

> >     >     > >    Replication Traffic Engineering" (BIER-TE) domain.

> >     >     > >

> >     >     > >

> >     >     > >

> >     >     > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:

> >     >     > >

> >     >

> >

> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdata

> >     > tracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-bier-te-

> >     >

> >

> isis%2F&amp;data=05%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7C5bbd38

> >     >

> >

> c256024261ea5608da71a546c0%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1

> >     >

> >

> %7C0%7C637947251926210034%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC

> >     >

> >

> 4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%

> >     >

> >

> 7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=99ojCa2m%2BTeMk0OfxeifsmVrhvNaK7jQJp0fu0syR

> >     > N8%3D&amp;reserved=0

> >     >     > >

> >     >     > > There is also an htmlized version available at:

> >     >     > >

> >     >

> >

> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdata

> >     > tracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-bier-te-isis-

> >     >

> >

> 01&amp;data=05%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7C5bbd38c256

> >     >

> >

> 024261ea5608da71a546c0%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0

> >     >

> >

> %7C637947251926210034%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjA

> >     >

> >

> wMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C

> >     >

> >

> %7C&amp;sdata=%2F8qaH0ZvQBAfGM4WIre0jpcI6As7wjXjdqbxOfdGHxo%3

> >     > D&amp;reserved=0

> >     >     > >

> >     >     > > A diff from the previous version is available at:

> >     >     > >

> >     >

> >

> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww

> >     > w.ietf.org%2Frfcdiff%3Furl2%3Ddraft-ietf-bier-te-isis-

> >     >

> >

> 01&amp;data=05%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7C5bbd38c256

> >     >

> >

> 024261ea5608da71a546c0%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0

> >     >

> >

> %7C637947251926210034%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjA

> >     >

> >

> wMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C

> >     >

> >

> %7C&amp;sdata=L77o0dGWGuSwL9vSm1Durc56Fl5zONoDq%2F8ij12v9lc%3D

> >     > &amp;reserved=0

> >     >     > >

> >     >     > >

> >     >     > > Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at

> > rsync.ietf.org::internet-

> >     > drafts

> >     >     > >

> >     >     > >

> >     >     > > _______________________________________________

> >     >     > > BIER mailing list

> >     >     > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> >     >     > >

> >     >

> >

> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww

> >     >

> >

> w.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbier&amp;data=05%7C01%7Chuaimo.c

> >     >

> >

> hen%40futurewei.com%7C5bbd38c256024261ea5608da71a546c0%7C0fee8ff

> >     >

> >

> 2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637947251926210034%7CUnkno

> >     >

> >

> wn%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1

> >     >

> >

> haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=em5K2lvVvXwkSl

> >     > ye1egSX%2BgtdfeqDArSsAycQJTPArI%3D&amp;reserved=0

> >     >     >

> >     >     > _______________________________________________

> >     >     > BIER mailing list

> >     >     > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> >     >     >

> >     >

> >

> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww

> >     >

> >

> w.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbier&amp;data=05%7C01%7Chuaimo.c

> >     >

> >

> hen%40futurewei.com%7C5bbd38c256024261ea5608da71a546c0%7C0fee8ff

> >     >

> >

> 2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637947251926210034%7CUnkno

> >     >

> >

> wn%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1

> >     >

> >

> haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=em5K2lvVvXwkSl

> >     > ye1egSX%2BgtdfeqDArSsAycQJTPArI%3D&amp;reserved=0

> >     >     >

> >     >     --

> >     >     ---

> >     >     [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> >     >     _______________________________________________

> >     >     BIER mailing list

> >     >     [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> >     >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier

> >     >

> >     >     _______________________________________________

> >     >     BIER mailing list

> >     >     [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> >     >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier

> >     >

> >     > _______________________________________________

> >     > BIER mailing list

> >     > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> >     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier

> _______________________________________________

> BIER mailing list

> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier