Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Mon, 23 October 2017 13:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ginsberg@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EB931389E1 for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 06:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 0D_ErZlMf-hn for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 06:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 482EC13F6D9 for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 06:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6840; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1508764399; x=1509973999; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=BvM7vmjnKwG+pMDQYM49uH+ZKIbVgq7OYCUdzCnFa7w=; b=Hf5L0cHEvyu6Rrr+8aBRIEZeprSfRDydlPSXFnNJ4T0sZg6clvjVPAwV 6m2pFp9Ey8ElJrV5Fvpm+cHS4g4VeBNXJNTQSAO8YtgOmjBKrK1m7ll1D +G9CiGQras9s/irFSoPYco9xLSOaQg4zksJJAzhVc/OAMq5qjwrnYVHqj k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CxAAAk6u1Z/5xdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg19kbicHg3OKH49CgXqWOYIRChgLhRgCGoQ4PxgBAgEBAQEBAQF?= =?us-ascii?q?rKIUdAQEBAQMBASEROgYFDAQCAQgRBAEBAwIjAwICAiULFAEICAIEDgUIE4oFE?= =?us-ascii?q?KwlgieLHwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARgFgQ+CH4IHgVCBaAGDKoUrgm6?= =?us-ascii?q?CYQWhFFICh2KNB4IehXqLEpVPAhEZAYE4AR84gVt6FUmCZIRfdoppgREBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.43,422,1503360000"; d="scan'208";a="309310482"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 23 Oct 2017 13:13:18 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com (xch-rcd-005.cisco.com [173.37.102.15]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v9NDDIgD022906 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 23 Oct 2017 13:13:18 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 08:13:17 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 08:13:17 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>
CC: "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols
Thread-Index: AQHTPxYHrHG571lUpkWJFBhDImQkMqLtMUCAgAFoPwCAAy2NAP//ufoA
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 13:13:17 +0000
Message-ID: <f6b6d0d7f09146e08e4c954690bb544f@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
References: <87infr1xw0.fsf@chopps.org> <849fc9ab-afe8-b708-de9d-8b628b57c74c@orange.com> <c2211554298f416591415d9d25b5e355@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <dc1ee623-bc4c-5e0c-cae8-793254334f14@orange.com>
In-Reply-To: <dc1ee623-bc4c-5e0c-cae8-793254334f14@orange.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.82.177]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/-wkBx83s1SM67Hq3VwBMAtbegh8>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 13:13:21 -0000

Julien -

My position on WG adoption of draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols (opposed) and the reasons why have been stated in an earlier post to the list.

draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols is discussing how to signal whether an application which makes use of link attribute advertisements  is enabled on a link. For the purposes of this discussion the application is specifically RSVP.

Your post is discussing a quite different thing. Given that RSVP is enabled you are asking/suggesting that we might want to also signal certain specific capabilities of RSVP - which is a qualitatively different thing.
I believe that is out of scope for draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols (and draft-ietf-isis-te-app).

   Les


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julien Meuric [mailto:julien.meuric@orange.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 5:16 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>
> Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-
> protocols
> 
> Hi Les,
> 
> I am not sure I am following you.
> 
> As per the abstract in draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols, all I am
> talking about is "a mechanism to indicate which traffic engineering protocols
> are enabled on a link in IS-IS." At this stage, are you questioning the
> relevance of the poll to the IS-IS WG? (In case we really had considered
> another WG for this I-D, we would certainly have ended up in TEAS, not in
> CCAMP nor MPLS).
> In case mentioning the node counterpart is confusing, please ignore RFC
> 5073.
> In case joining Chris B's open discussion about renaming the "TE protocol sub-
> TLV" is not obvious, please do not consider that as a prerequisite to adopt
> the I-D.
> 
> You suggest RFC 5029 as a candidate solution for draft-hegde-isis-advertising-
> te-protocols (section 3). That would save us a sub-TLV codepoint and leave
> us 14 bits instead of 32. This looks like a reasonable way forward to me.
> 
> By the way, the suggested value for the sub-TLV in draft-hegde-isis-
> advertising-te-protocols is already allocated!
> Shraddha/Chris, could you please drop suggested codepoints from the I-D?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Julien
> 
> 
> 
> Oct. 21, 2017 - ginsberg@cisco.com:
> > Julien -
> >
> > I think the issue you raise first needs to be discussed in CCAMP (or perhaps
> MPLS) WG. If there is agreement that this is a problem which needs to be
> addressed then a draft can be written. Perhaps this is RFC 5073bis - perhaps
> something else.
> >
> > As far as link level signaling, in IS-IS there is already provision
> > for that using link attributes sub-TLV defined in RFC 5029:
> > https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoin
> > ts.xhtml#isis-tlv-codepoints-19of22
> > If signaling is required to address the issue you raise that would be the
> most appropriate place to do it.
> >
> > I don't think your issue is in scope for either draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-
> protocols or draft-ietf-isis-te-app.
> >
> >    Les
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julien
> >> Meuric
> >> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 7:15 AM
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I support the adoption of draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols
> >> as a foundation for a WG item. A per-link "Capability sub-TLV" (the
> >> term "protocol" might be too specific here) really adds a missing
> >> piece after RFC 5073.
> >>
> >> Once WG document, we may discuss an additional use case suggested by
> >> that RFC: on top of RSVP-TE support, distinguish between 3209-only
> >> and 3473-capable. Indeed, there are parameters like SRLGs that were
> >> defined as part of GMPLS extensions: an implementation (wildly)
> >> guessing RFC
> >> 3473 support from that would not be fully wrong. Similarly, an
> >> implementation may perfectly support 3473 even if it has not
> >> explicitly advertise a PSC switching capability on a given link. Let
> >> us make these explicit!
> >>
> >> My 2 cents,
> >>
> >> Julien
> >>
> >>
> >> Oct. 07, 2017 - Christian Hopps:
> >>> Hi Folks,
> >>>
> >>> The authors have requested the IS-IS WG adopt
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro
> >>> to
> >>> cols/
> >>>
> >>> as a working group document. Please indicate your support or
> >>> no-support for taking on this work.
> >>>
> >>> Authors: Please indicate your knowledge of any IPR related to this
> >>> work to the list as well.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Chris & Hannes.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Isis-wg mailing list
> >>> Isis-wg@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Isis-wg mailing list
> >> Isis-wg@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
> >