Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-ginsberg-isis-te-app

I read quickly through the drafts and I oppose the adoption of draft
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ginsberg-isis-te-app/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ginsberg-isis-te-app/> as is. It
introduces a non-orthogonal,  redundant encoding solution [to RFC5305] per
application which is always fun until all the redundancy conflicts in such
encodings occur as they must. The problem as far I see is:

a) we need a _link-property_ which kind of signalling is present and NOT
bunch of confusingly non-orthogonal repeating metric encoding with
hard-coded application values. IMO the problem is better addressed by
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols-02
 currently.
b) the remaining problem of possibly diverging, same metrics _per_
signalling is probably better addressed by a e.g. allowing existing
multiple RFC5305 occurences which are signalling protocol specific (unless
I missed something reading draft hedge)

The two drafts (hedge & ginsberg) should be joined without introducing a
new TLV or hardcoding of existing/future signalling per bit in masks and
brought forward to adoption ...

thanks

--- tony

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> wrote:

>
> Hi Folks,
>
> The authors have requested the IS-IS WG adopt
>
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ginsberg-isis-te-app/
>
> 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
>
>

-- 
*We’ve heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce
the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know
that is not true.*
—Robert Wilensky