Re: [Isis-wg] =?UTF-8?B?562U5aSN?=: =?UTF-8?B?IOetlOWkjQ==?=: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07

Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 22 December 2017 18:50 UTC

Return-Path: <jefftant.ietf@gmail.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 810CC124BFA; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 10:50:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 077fOq9KJt9m; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 10:50:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot0-x22e.google.com (mail-ot0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEFF61200B9; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 10:50:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id a42so3624509otj.5; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 10:50:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yjGgoEOJXgdzpwdWfYnpx+BxWb8RynqDY5EIPA32r7I=; b=ghBcse/TvWsxc9uY2YU62EfGT/GnnYUWSr95izkMp6lR+NXPyW2mFWG/riLZ2jZsKQ haA4HBY9gsx3vUsJYR28J0NOKkxkgm+CEVFXhM5X1jkYB4/aOmrY3dRuARFsuW7ScY9l vHYFbODz5Kv3gkxvEjEf7QjbKrAAV+Qn5rxlTw3fM04WoBbVp03FnnKhJUxrVb9juZsI 3scvoIbXioSmUyK09nB16Q2FDFU0yOykoxaWmg7kUyJql5SuaMXO98PZTpEYysVA3gKv LlYJ+tlTonf6w7cfyFyClEJG3wKB5ZZa1yqLBmGEirZn9dbau7M6Cc2lEwak6Bme0EIL XGEw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id :thread-topic:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yjGgoEOJXgdzpwdWfYnpx+BxWb8RynqDY5EIPA32r7I=; b=XBbRNd9Hz4A+YDpA5OaE9St7CWxWGOG9JbdSrbrRZ/TN0bISYcES8bIYDPGHw/NfxW k0GipsM29SeZt4j2ylnCYdRe3M9Gz3ihZwhapW4S1JmNgIXIpfCuJg0Pzi2sJ1TsTkJ4 4Nb8PmBqYIIZuGJWUNGOyO+Dc1F2YNFb/s4+M2Y6ZNCN5Yzj59m10Wg8K+XHmQyO7bVr xF+YVrYD2XS+BXVYZcQhMFOH0xFcfsmeqAZJ2ULuySaM3noQ9NWhQhqKh4x/ZvQ4uB39 MB54G2NC1j7tNhwbnWqvoC7JgBT/fNREYyNDTFgJAsyNPIyo7Senc146DFJh+Lc7lkIr e8nw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJm8GSj0nTcv3XS7wIwvvkzdTCC8o+Dcw/aa6ozS1FsDnIqNv8S tjivsuTmLyfptf4YJR4NYE0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovu2562k4FyicS32BS8niJb/bwLOEiEjCpzV/6/RJhIhn2dI0jBr9iOfjQsglaQLiloRM8WQw==
X-Received: by 10.157.40.49 with SMTP id m46mr10918004otb.115.1513968642188; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 10:50:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [100.65.101.83] ([206.16.17.196]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u12sm3226440ote.65.2017.12.22.10.50.40 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 22 Dec 2017 10:50:41 -0800 (PST)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.29.0.171205
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 10:50:17 -0800
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
CC: "isis-ads@ietf.org" <isis-ads@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <254873F7-39C8-461F-B69F-8B68842181E3@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: =?UTF-8?B?562U5aSN?=: =?UTF-8?B?IOetlOWkjQ==?=: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/7JWNQhDlGlmNJ1pwtnYhZeV8-hs>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] =?UTF-8?B?562U5aSN?=: =?UTF-8?B?IOetlOWkjQ==?=: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07
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: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 18:50:46 -0000

Xiaohu,

PCEP and ISIS(OSPF) are quite different in their functionality and not meant to do the same thing. Wrt SR ecosystem, PCEP is optional, while IGP’s are mandatory.
When it comes to a node capability, PCEP and IGP’s provide same information and fully aligned, however more granular, per link information is only available in IGPs, and this is as per design (not a bug).
PCEP SR draft (which I’m co-author of) will be last called soon, please make sure you provide your comments to the PCE WG.

The intention of this thread is to last call draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd, that has Type 1 defined and creates IANA registry for the future Types.
I’d appreciate your comments specifically to the draft, and if you have got any technical objection, would be happy to address them.

Thanks!

Cheers,
Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
Date: Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 16:42
To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>om>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>om>, "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>om>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>rg>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Cc: "isis-ads@ietf.org" <isis-ads@ietf.org>rg>, "draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org>
Subject: 答复: 答复: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07

    Jeff,
    
    IMHO, the MSD or the MSD(type 1) just indicates a certain label imposition capability which should be signaling-agnostic. More specially, the MSD or MSD(type1) capability could be signaled via IGP, BGP or PCEP. 
    
    If the semantic of MSD (type 1) as defined in your IGP-MSD draft equals the semantics of MSD as defined in PCEP-SR draft, I believe it'd better to iron out such terminology inconsistency ASAP.
    
    Best regards,
    Xiaohu
    
    > -----邮件原件-----
    > 发件人: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:jefftant.ietf@gmail.com]
    > 发送时间: 2017年12月22日 5:22
    > 收件人: Xuxiaohu; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Ketan Talaulikar (ketant); Christian
    > Hopps; isis-wg@ietf.org
    > 抄送: isis-ads@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org
    > 主题: Re: 答复: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07
    > 
    > Xuxiaohu,
    > 
    > To clarify:
    > The concept had been developed in both, in parallel, however PCEP
    > implementation is limited (node only, PCC in question has to have PCEP sessions
    > with the PCE), and this is clearly stated in the draft – if MSD is known from both
    > sources (PCEP and IGP/BGP-LS) the later takes precedence. IGP drafts are the
    > source of truth when it comes to semantics definitions.
    
    
    
    > Personally, I don’t see any confusion wrt name, all drafts have been around for
    > quite some time, reviewed by many people, presented in academia and
    > networking events, noone was ever confused…
    > 
    > I’m not sure about value of your proposal either, and I’d leave the decision
    > what to use to people who are the consumers of the technology, those who are
    > going to implement it (at least 3 MSD implementations are on their ways).
    > 
    > As the last point – we are not “considering” expanding, the draft is clear about
    > the future extensions to come and encoding is done in a way to facilitate such
    > extensions.
    > This is the working group last call for the draft, not a discussion whether we
    > should proceed with the technology:
    > If you see any technical problems with the solution proposed – I’d be the first
    > to listen to you and address them!
    > 
    > Happy holidays!
    > 
    > Cheers,
    > Jeff
    > 
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
    > Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 18:40
    > To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>om>, "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)"
    > <ketant@cisco.com>om>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>rg>, "isis-wg@ietf.org"
    > <isis-wg@ietf.org>
    > Cc: "isis-ads@ietf.org" <isis-ads@ietf.org>rg>,
    > "draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org"
    > <draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org>
    > Subject: 答复: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07
    > Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org>
    > Resent-To: <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>om>, <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>om>,
    > <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>om>, <ginsberg@cisco.com>
    > Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 18:40:16 -0800 (PST)
    > 
    >     Hi Les,
    > 
    >     If I understand it correctly, the MSD concept was originated from
    > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11#page-7) as
    > described below:
    > 
    >     "The "Maximum SID Depth" (1
    >        octet) field (MSD) specifies the maximum number of SIDs (MPLS label
    >        stack depth in the context of this document) that a PCC is capable of
    >        imposing on a packet."
    > 
    >     Before considering expanding the semantics of the MSD concept as defined
    > in the above PCE-SR draft, how about first considering renaming the capability
    > of imposing the maximum number of labels so as to eliminate possible
    > confusions, e.g., Writable Label-stack Depth (WLD) as opposed to the Readable
    > Label-stack Depth (RLD) as defined in
    > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc) and
    > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc) ?
    > 
    >     Best regards,
    >     Xiaohu
    > 
    >     > -----邮件原件-----
    >     > 发件人: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Les Ginsberg
    > (ginsberg)
    >     > 发送时间: 2017年12月21日 4:02
    >     > 收件人: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant); Christian Hopps; isis-wg@ietf.org
    >     > 抄送: isis-ads@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org
    >     > 主题: Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07
    >     >
    >     > Ketan -
    >     >
    >     > Thanx for the comments.
    >     > I think we do want to allow MSD support for values other than imposition
    >     > values. We will revise the text so we are not restricted to only imposition
    > cases.
    >     >
    >     >   Les
    >     >
    >     >
    >     > > -----Original Message-----
    >     > > From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
    >     > > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 1:51 AM
    >     > > To: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>rg>; isis-wg@ietf.org
    >     > > Cc: isis-ads@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org
    >     > > Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for
    >     > > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07
    >     > >
    >     > > Hello,
    >     > >
    >     > > I support this document and would like to ask the authors and WG to
    >     > > consider if we can expand the scope of this draft to not just
    >     > > "imposition" of the SID stack but also other similar limits related to
    > other
    >     > actions (e.g.
    >     > > reading, processing, etc.). With Segment Routing, we are coming across
    >     > > various actions that nodes need to do with the SID stack for different
    >     > > purposes and IMHO it would be useful to extend the MSD ability to
    >     > > cover those as they arise.
    >     > >
    >     > > Thanks,
    >     > > Ketan
    >     > >
    >     > > -----Original Message-----
    >     > > From: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christian
    >     > > Hopps
    >     > > Sent: 20 December 2017 14:03
    >     > > To: isis-wg@ietf.org
    >     > > Cc: isis-ads@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org
    >     > > Subject: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for
    >     > > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07
    >     > >
    >     > >
    >     > > The authors have asked for and we are starting a WG Last Call on
    >     > >
    >     > >  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd/
    >     > >
    >     > > which will last an extended 4 weeks to allow for year-end PTO patterns.
    >     > >
    >     > > An IPR statement exists:
    >     > >
    >     > >
    >     > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-is
    >     > > is-
    >     > > segment-routing-msd
    >     > >
    >     > > Authors please reply to the list indicating whether you are aware of
    >     > > any
    >     > > *new* IPR.
    >     > >
    >     > > Thanks,
    >     > > Chris.
    >     > >
    >     > > _______________________________________________
    >     > > 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
    > 
    >