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

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

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]>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 7:27 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> <[e-mail]>; [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]> 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]> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
>     > Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 4:10 AM
>     > To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>     > Cc: [e-mail];
> ginsberg=[e-mail];
>     > [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]" <bier-
>     > [e-mail] on behalf of [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-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]>
>     >     To: Huaimo Chen <[e-mail]>;
>     >     Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>     > <ginsberg=[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[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]> On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg
>     > (ginsberg)
>     >     > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2022 4:59 PM
>     >     > To: [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]> On Behalf Of internet-
>     > [e-mail]
>     >     > > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2022 12:13 PM
>     >     > > To: [e-mail]
>     >     > > Cc: [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]
>     >     > >
>     >
> 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]
>     >     >
>     >
> 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]
>     >     _______________________________________________
>     >     BIER mailing list
>     >     [e-mail]
>     >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>     >
>     >     _______________________________________________
>     >     BIER mailing list
>     >     [e-mail]
>     >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > BIER mailing list
>     > [e-mail]
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier