Re: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call (6/6 to 6/20)

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

From: Idr <[e-mail]> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 7:23 PM
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg=[e-mail]>
Cc: IDR List <[e-mail]>, Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call (6/6 to 6/20)

Dear Les,

I have two final questions on this:

on such a mundane topic.

Would IDR keeping their WG policy in place and mandating two interoperable implementations and decent industry support make this topic a little bit less mundane ?

If someone actually has an alternative proposal with some detail – that would be interesting.

This proposal to send LSDB across N nodes should come from and within LSR WG as we are talking about LSR protocols. Why IDR is even cc-ed and LSR WG is not beats me.

Why can't LSR WG not come with IMP - IGP Monitoring Protocol ?

We already have the capability in OSPF – See section 3.3 of https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-transport-instance-02.txt  We just need more support…

Thanks,
Acee



Thx,
R.

PS. Actually the way I read Jeff's note was very positive and extended help to LSR WG to make the process seamless. But it seems some folks apparently think this is all done - do not waste our time - You IDR-ers take what we produce in ISIS and OSPF to BGP forever. That's pretty cool indeed :)  And another LSR WG member and ex-chair says if you do not take it we will squat codepoints and do it anyway ... so you have no choice. Bravo !