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

[[e-mail]]

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]>
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>;Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=[e-mail]>;张征00007940;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[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]> 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]>
> 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
_______________________________________________
BIER mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier