Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B18A12007A for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 03:50:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.948 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xM9-IRXJ8tbS for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 03:50:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-100-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0EFF120018 for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 03:50:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=174.124.224.176; From: "Susan Hares" To: "'Robert Raszuk'" Cc: "'idr@ietf. org'" References: <01ce01d5167f$d263a120$772ae360$@ndzh.com> <02cf01d51ab1$052bfc80$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <004201d51abd$498a5000$dc9ef000$@ndzh.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 06:50:15 -0400 Message-ID: <005301d51ac3$4b6e6a90$e24b3fb0$@ndzh.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0054_01D51AA1.C45E7840" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQGY39g/S8sCt+WuAGK2LIFpJMMw4wIpWAlKAqyDdnsDWhrmLAJBikNdprA4kkA= Content-Language: en-us X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 190604-1, 06/03/2019), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext [5/2 - 5/16/2018] X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2019 10:50:26 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0054_01D51AA1.C45E7840 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Robert:=20 =20 Ah=E2=80=A6 thanks for unpacking Tom=E2=80=99s message. Since John = and I are focused on getting all the WG drafts toward RFC (where the = draft name does not matter), I had not consider this point. Acee and = Chris in LSR have standardized on a particular form of bgp-ls. Tom = Petch has a good point. =20 =20 As to the 99% of BGP-LS, that=E2=80=99s a question the chairs and ADs = tried to ask the WG in 2018. The WG did not engage on that discussion. = =20 =20 In order to protect the BGP stream, the ADs/Chairs pushed for = draft-ketana-rfc7752bis.txt (for improved error handling) and larger BGP = messages (see raft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-30.txt). =20 =20 Cheerily,=20 Sue Hares=20 =20 =20 =20 From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 6:30 AM To: Susan Hares Cc: idr@ietf. org Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext [5/2 = - 5/16/2018] =20 Hi Sue, =20 To me Tom was simply pointing out difference in name if the draft where = dash is missing in "bgp-ls" string in this specific case. =20 On the other points you have raised I think it is missing the = fundamental one ... since when what used to be a wg focused in the past = on interdomain routing became a mainstream of link state, topology, bfd, = pce data collection and distribution. =20 Even charter aside IMO by shifting IDR focus and processing 99% of = BGP-LS related documents we are doing huge disservice to Internet and = routing related needs without even bringing the aspect of protocol = pollution. =20 Kind regards, R. =20 On Tue, Jun 4, 2019, 12:07 Susan Hares wrote: Tom: Your short mail usually has good suggestions, so I tried to decode this message - but I failed. I'm guessing at the question. =20 If this question is about the multiple drafts for the BGP-LS, see my = message yesterday to Jeff regarding drafts from LSR with BGP-LS code points and early allocations.=20 If this question is about BGP-LS error handling, see my wish/hope that = draft the draft-ketana-rfc7752bis.txt will be ready for adoption soon.=20 If this question is about early code point allocation, this early allocation policy is IESG/IANA policy. If you wish me to ask for a = change, please unpack the message so I can work on it.=20 Cheerily, Susan=20 -----Original Message----- From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of tom petch Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 4:44 AM To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant); Susan Hares; idr@ietf.org Cc: draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext [5/2 = - 5/16/2018] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" Sent: Monday, June 03, 2019 2:36 AM Hello All, The WG version of this draft has been posted as below You have done exactly what you were asked to do, but it is unfortunate = that all the other ID have bgp-ls while this has bgpls. Sue, Are you happy to live with this? Tom Petch https://datatracker..ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-00 = = We would like to request for early code point allocation from IANA to = enable implementations with suggested code points as indicated below: The following codepoints is suggested (to be assigned by IANA) from within the sub-registry called "BGP-LS NLRI-Types": +------+----------------------------+---------------+ | Type | NLRI Type | Reference | +------+----------------------------+---------------+ | 6 | SRv6 SID | this document | +------+----------------------------+---------------+ The following TLV codepoints are suggested (to be assigned by IANA) from within the sub-registry called "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs": +----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+ | TLV Code | Description | Value defined | | Point | | in | +----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+ | 1038 | SRv6 Capabilities TLV | this document | | 1106 | SRv6 End.X SID TLV | this document | | 1107 | IS-IS SRv6 LAN End.X SID TLV | this document | | 1108 | OSPFv3 SRv6 LAN End.X SID TLV | this document | | 1162 | SRv6 Locator TLV | this document | | 518 | SRv6 SID Information TLV | this document | | 1250 | SRv6 Endpoint Function TLV | this document | | 1251 | SRv6 BGP Peer Node SID TLV | this document | +----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+ Thanks, Ketan From: Susan Hares Sent: 30 May 2019 06:07 To: idr@ietf.org Cc: draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext [5/2 - 5/16/2018] draft-dwara-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext has been adopted. The authors should submit the draft as: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-00.txt. As soon as this draft has been submitted, an early code point allocation call will begin. Cheerily, Sue ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr ------=_NextPart_000_0054_01D51AA1.C45E7840 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Robert:

 

Ah=E2=80=A6=C2=A0 thanks for unpacking Tom=E2=80=99s message. = =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0Since John and I are focused on getting all the WG = drafts toward RFC (where the draft name does not matter), I had not = consider this point.=C2=A0 Acee and Chris in LSR have standardized on a = particular form of bgp-ls.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Tom Petch has a good point. = =C2=A0=C2=A0

 

As to the 99% of BGP-LS,=C2=A0 that=E2=80=99s a question the chairs = and ADs tried to ask the WG in 2018.=C2=A0 =C2=A0The WG did not engage = on that discussion.=C2=A0

 

In order to protect the BGP stream,=C2=A0 the ADs/Chairs pushed for = draft-ketana-rfc7752bis.txt (for improved error handling) and larger BGP = messages (see raft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-30.txt).=C2=A0=C2=A0 =

 

Cheerily,

=C2=A0Sue Hares

 

 

 

From:= = Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert = Raszuk
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 6:30 AM
To: Susan = Hares
Cc: idr@ietf. org
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption = call for draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext [5/2 - = 5/16/2018]

 

Hi = Sue,

 

To me Tom was simply pointing out difference in name = if the draft where dash is missing in "bgp-ls" string in this = specific case.

 

On the other points you have raised I think it is = missing the fundamental one ... since when what used to be a wg focused = in the past on interdomain routing became a mainstream of link state, = topology, bfd, pce data collection and = distribution.

 

Even charter aside IMO by shifting IDR focus and = processing 99% of BGP-LS related documents we are doing huge disservice = to Internet and routing related needs without even bringing the aspect = of protocol pollution.

 

Kind regards,

R.

 

On = Tue, Jun 4, 2019, 12:07 Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> = wrote:

Tom:

Your short mail usually has good = suggestions, so I tried to decode this
message - but I failed.  = I'm guessing at the question. 

If this question is about = the multiple drafts for the BGP-LS, see my message
yesterday to Jeff = regarding drafts from LSR with BGP-LS code points and
early = allocations.
If this question is about BGP-LS error handling, see my = wish/hope that draft
the draft-ketana-rfc7752bis.txt will be ready = for adoption soon.
If this question is about early code point = allocation,  this early
allocation policy is IESG/IANA = policy.  If you wish me to ask for a change,
please unpack the = message so I can work on it.

Cheerily, Susan =

-----Original Message-----
From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of tom = petch
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 4:44 AM
To: Ketan Talaulikar = (ketant); Susan Hares; idr@ietf.org
Cc: draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext@ietf.org
Subject:= Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext [5/2 = -
5/16/2018]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ketan = Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>
Sent: Monday, June 03, = 2019 2:36 AM

Hello All,

The WG version of this draft has = been posted as below

<tp>

You have done exactly what = you were asked to do, but it is unfortunate that
all the other ID = have bgp-ls while this has bgpls.

Sue,

Are you happy to = live with this?

Tom Petch


https://datatracker..ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-b= gpls-srv6-ext-00

We would like to request for early code = point allocation from IANA to enable
implementations with suggested = code points as indicated below:

   The following = codepoints is suggested (to be assigned by IANA) from
  =  within the sub-registry called "BGP-LS = NLRI-Types":

    = +------+----------------------------+---------------+
    | = Type | NLRI Type                =   |   Reference   |
    = +------+----------------------------+---------------+
    = |  6   | SRv6 SID          =          | this document |
    = +------+----------------------------+---------------+

  =  The following TLV codepoints are suggested (to be assigned by = IANA)
   from within the sub-registry called "BGP-LS = Node Descriptor, Link
   Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and = Attribute TLVs":

  =  +----------+----------------------------------------+--------------= -+
   | TLV Code |            =  Description                = | Value defined |
   |  Point   |  =                     =                   |  =      in      |
  =  +----------+----------------------------------------+--------------= -+
   |  1038    |   SRv6 = Capabilities TLV                = | this document |
   |  1106    |  =  SRv6 End.X SID TLV              =      | this document |
   |  1107  =   |   IS-IS SRv6 LAN End.X SID TLV      =    | this document |
  |  1108    = |   OSPFv3 SRv6 LAN End.X SID TLV        | = this document |
   |  1162    |  =  SRv6 Locator TLV              =        | this document |
   |  =  518    |   SRv6 SID Information TLV  =            | this document |
  =  |  1250    |   SRv6 Endpoint Function = TLV           | this document = |

   |  1251    |   SRv6 BGP = Peer Node SID TLV           | this = document |
  =  +----------+----------------------------------------+--------------= -+


Thanks,
Ketan

From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Sent: 30 May 2019 = 06:07
To: idr@ietf.org
Cc: draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext@ietf.org
Subject:= Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext
[5/2 - = 5/16/2018]

draft-dwara-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext has been = adopted.
The authors should submit the draft = as:
draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-00.txt.

As soon as this = draft has been submitted, an early code point allocation
call will = begin.

Cheerily, = Sue




--------------------------------------------------= ----------------------
--------


> = _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing = list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing = list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

__= _____________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

------=_NextPart_000_0054_01D51AA1.C45E7840--