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

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
> >