Re: [i2rs] 'network type' placement and RFC8345

Lou Berger <> Sat, 26 September 2020 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11F503A0990 for <>; Sat, 26 Sep 2020 07:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PdqqrNfoy-7S for <>; Sat, 26 Sep 2020 07:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C78043A098D for <>; Sat, 26 Sep 2020 07:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 754099E8603FB for <>; Sat, 26 Sep 2020 08:00:00 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from ([]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id MAk4k8O9SWYdhMAk4kmJrz; Sat, 26 Sep 2020 08:00:00 -0600
X-Authority-Reason: nr=8
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=CYomGojl c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=dLZJa+xiwSxG16/P+YVxDGlgEgI=:19 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10:nop_ipv6 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10:nop_charset_1 a=reM5J-MqmosA:10:nop_rcvd_month_year a=Vy_oeq2dmq0A:10:endurance_base64_authed_username_1 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=TWcEkWJUgOrtNDOlHqMA:9 a=lm-OBoNNGzlfUVCy:21 a=JbHyfGmid4RtRfi8:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10:nop_charset_2 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=FFNmE/MlVUHhgwmEbVG634qAGFfPsR9MAaZNK2A0UD4=; b=09YWiswHTmzKEE56muCLaOj8EH Xinn5o0/FkMEPNT7csSCnrrRNQ/2ALshX5b3kPZHknM1OH1QyUPPBpWmymdaepjPCx4i93RID17MJ jcqzNV7dcYVWdYqKlQiwG0gl2;
Received: from [] (port=57009 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <>) id 1kMAk4-001pvN-7l; Sat, 26 Sep 2020 08:00:00 -0600
To: tom petch <>, Susan Hares <>, 'Qin Wu' <>
Cc: "" <>
References: <> <> <007201d6933d$3726b4e0$a5741ea0$> <> <02c001d69388$cd8a0c20$689e2460$> <>
From: Lou Berger <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 09:59:59 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-L: Yes
X-Exim-ID: 1kMAk4-001pvN-7l
X-Source-Sender: ([IPv6:::1]) []:57009
X-Email-Count: 4
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [i2rs] 'network type' placement and RFC8345
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Interface to The Internet Routing System \(IRS\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 14:00:11 -0000


On 9/26/2020 7:06 AM, tom petch wrote:
> I have read and re-read RFC8345 and as I have said, I find it clear that a
> presence container must be defined but do not see the guidance as to what
> goes under what, apart from OSPF and layer 3.

As other messages makes clear, there's a lot of history here. The 
assumption has always been that technologies controlled using TE 
mechanisms/models of the IETF (including those worked on in CCAMP)  
would be based on the generic TE models developed in TEAS.  I think the 
documents developed in CCAMP make this hierarchy clear -- but perhaps 
I've been too close to those discussions.  FWIW is pretty clear on this.  
I suggest moving this discussion back to CCAMP or TEAS for follow up 
focused on the ccamp document or teas-produced RFC...