Re: [Isis-wg] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <> Wed, 24 May 2017 18:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAAAE124281; Wed, 24 May 2017 11:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M5NpzKOfBjDg; Wed, 24 May 2017 11:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B72712949E; Wed, 24 May 2017 11:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=17535; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1495650501; x=1496860101; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=qbpTxI3HW/Co/LXsNNuOXP3YKBOkaY1RU2+55fC1fcA=; b=WbBqjhLJd/Kh3j+QaDCNQowVnyQXdqWBz8zt1m6imSXNApltlIpkyXhK TjiI5sP+D6SOcfqJ0mSGWad4Kabe710N+7X6CHiljrIX4vxM5urL+m/M9 Nyb3iTHQc1u7awtT+xJKBTPVCbInATGrpHwes4/CQttWzpaNn6NsWDpFp Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.38,387,1491264000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="31445140"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 May 2017 18:28:19 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v4OISJgC025720 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 May 2017 18:28:19 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 24 May 2017 14:28:18 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 24 May 2017 14:28:18 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: Adam Roach <>, Alia Atlas <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, The IESG <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHS1D4EMikYozXaU0aiUBfRHBkZ0KIDqAEAgABYwID//83FAA==
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 18:28:18 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D54B481FB08BAaceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 18:28:33 -0000

Hi Adam, and other esteemed IESG members,

As an aside, please note that the missing WGLC IPR declarations have been posted to the ISIS WG list since the shepherd’s report.


From: Isis-wg <<>> on behalf of Adam Roach <<>>
Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 1:28 PM
To: Alia Atlas <<>>
Cc: "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>, The IESG <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 5/24/17 7:10 AM, Alia Atlas wrote:

First, I would greatly appreciate it if you and others could read the ballot write-up.  I did
try to explain what I did to mitigate the concerns in the shepherd's write-up; as far as I
can tell, this is a case of one person being in the rough.

Thanks for the pointer. For clarity, the person you're describing as "in the rough" is the document shepherd, right?

For avoidance of doubt: I did read both the shepherd's write-up and the ballot write-up prior to entering my position. The problem I'm running into is that the explanations in the ballot writeup seem to be contradictions rather than clarifications. For example, the shepherd's answer to question (9) paints a different picture than the "clear WG consensus to publish" in the ballot writeup.

Please read my write-up - which I did spend time on to explain some of these
aspects.   The existing IPR claim - by a non-author- was brought up to the WG
and very briefly discussed, as is typical.

Thanks for the clarification; "briefly discussed" disagrees with the answer in the shepherd's writeup: "no WG discussion around IPR." I do see that the Ericsson disclosure was posted to the list on May 12, 2016; and a number of assertions in June of 2016 that other individuals were unaware of additional IPR, but I find no emails that directly contradict the shepherd's assertion, so I must be missing the "brief discussion" you refer to. Do you have a pointer? Note that I don't consider this lack of discussion to be blocking in and of itself, but it does add to the "this smells kind of funny" situation around this draft.

I concede that many of the issues I'm seeing may be the result of a reluctant shepherd rather than actual process issues. Is there a chance we could get a different shepherd assigned (e.g., the other ISIS chair)? In addition to noting that the current shepherd, if opposed to the document in the way that is being implied, is unlikely to be proactive in moving it forward, I think shepherd-writeup-style input from a different party who was involved in the working group during the progression of this document would be very helpful in clearing the air here.

These overarching process problems seem large enough that any comments I
may have on actual content -- such as an apparent lack of IPv6 support
(or, at least, a complete omission of IPv6 from the examples) -- would
seem like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

If you have specific technical concerns, they are, of course, easier to just deal with
at the same time.  The document does, of course, support IPv6 - as is clearly indicated
in Section 2.1 where, for instance,  use of " IPv6 Interface Address (sub-TLV 12
defined in [RFC6119])" is mentioned.  The appendix doesn't include an IPv6 example,
but the primary purpose there is to explain the complex sub-TLV structuring since
the standard bit-fields ascii art was challenging to do in a meaningful way.

Well, they're more editorial than technical, since IS-IS is a bit outside of my wheelhouse. If the draft moves forward, I would like to see the IPv4 examples use addresses from the RFC5737 blocks, and perhaps an alternation between IPv4 and IPv6 in the examples.