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

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

I tend to agree w Acee's comment.
Two drafts seems excessive here.

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