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

John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> Wed, 25 October 2017 19:07 UTC

Return-Path: <jdrake@juniper.net>
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 CF3ED13836A for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 12:07:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.021
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.021 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_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 wYbKJJ_9VBDN for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 12:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM01-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam01on0118.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.32.118]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 863B513F450 for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 12:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=kWoYvGWnfejrvQqFrnPnS5sGt7BrhMgUJzDl1mhcrQc=; b=Uh1V0dHr4QAaXnanycP7hszHyeAGUcs34BEYewsOtUJHOYdLIsswSVViL3GibpG80JUfpqUdCINFltS+1yHel2P4aijgXpAZBb21bkPRH3gTSx6FqALl1gSccjEaQRZaJUZeAy5nD7uxCx2CeK/leKFtXLqJSWyaMAykwtMkAek=
Received: from MWHPR05MB3551.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.174.250.154) by CO2PR05MB970.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.226.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.156.4; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:06:51 +0000
Received: from MWHPR05MB3551.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.174.250.154]) by MWHPR05MB3551.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.174.250.154]) with mapi id 15.20.0178.003; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:06:50 +0000
From: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>
CC: "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, Adrian Farrel <afarrel@juniper.net>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols
Thread-Index: AQHTPxYFUwJcolHO7EG6GrrssrIWLqLs3W6AgAG/rwCAAtYeAIAAD/qAgAM8RgCAAEUfgIAAA6uw
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:06:50 +0000
Message-ID: <MWHPR05MB3551D8ACB148C096A357885DC7440@MWHPR05MB3551.namprd05.prod.outlook.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> <f6b6d0d7f09146e08e4c954690bb544f@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <60aa5abe-eb20-8639-e3fe-0093c5456d50@orange.com> <fe72c37b0b934f6d9adf07ff4ea2d7a3@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <fe72c37b0b934f6d9adf07ff4ea2d7a3@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jdrake@juniper.net;
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.12]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CO2PR05MB970; 6:hrE58B80XxtmdXug20C4lEZzJ7oT+l+Qy1lIfCKbMYUCivA8/b0TwegufzpJbNGxrvEK53xzHvZtwpiPxbMKFu81xBWmLFUObu5HH54TEVCJOB78p1nLNZNZjjA8F1RF7yKc9ML+SlS0jMmnchkTZVY8MHSflLoROy3OHt4vBrmfE0TNNMRw6RtIIxagsZ7kJkrbIx8IIDkmzkojXgewlaWt+ad9FWpDw+cH8gDwDk7zbjHEoDnN4xCzsRnmh5RPgQZ28SXmrNAnAllbHMg/nEQmhYHvQJDNKNnADARPwBdiuvfXQSoWkW3aHGVDQZnqli0fnRUjxGci54QCcLssbA==; 5:MNcCv40LCYlgWwNaTgNR+/Tuvf+myVJKg1fVzUSJoYksbS5AmVRelWo4KEf/01oSyZHvmKGiIW2+ZpULFuOtWX5YFaDw45ww/v0mCIdDSkKICWsaBfwbWdI90J+JIJbbCAdwfEnEgC3H+wkxtkPj0w==; 24:mvX7CB1AEEiMPXsWf/kq9HzGGBQLkvYiY6xdTum+ORTovokn1JPtG9LINexitngoZfR7pbWbzoYH5qs+/Ev/HBXfZqR7t1qQgnXCDe/nskk=; 7:qt9vGCxEOFg/2VX5d3vpC1Y8eZ6sNmWejUBr0zE4c2YOqIfMEGZUaVUMCNZK4rYxd6mcCk+XtxlTT4RABb21FP4UKE0zIfz9Bvf9WMDfIiRgj5GXr2JX4cd7LyKao9Pfj4c+UZZIYoF8YVc1jL4UcVzO+jINmrFRjr0ZcOfyOcUaoTkQ69wBKCyJAeghRc941p7GPcX7gjPowhGhv3spEnMw0mUzaecYAGqtB7ob90Y=
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;SSOR;
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:SKI; SCL:-1; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(376002)(39860400002)(346002)(57704003)(13464003)(189002)(37854004)(199003)(189998001)(68736007)(3846002)(8676002)(102836003)(101416001)(6116002)(2906002)(99286003)(7736002)(6506006)(7696004)(33656002)(77096006)(561944003)(53546010)(6306002)(966005)(229853002)(305945005)(74316002)(55016002)(316002)(14454004)(25786009)(53936002)(9686003)(93886005)(105586002)(2900100001)(106356001)(8936002)(81166006)(5660300001)(230783001)(6246003)(478600001)(81156014)(97736004)(2950100002)(66066001)(110136005)(4326008)(6436002)(3280700002)(3660700001)(54906003)(54356999)(86362001)(575784001)(50986999)(76176999)(19627235001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CO2PR05MB970; H:MWHPR05MB3551.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 7a00b04d-2914-4b5c-890e-08d51bdb8bdf
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(48565401081)(4534020)(4602075)(4627075)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603199); SRVR:CO2PR05MB970;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CO2PR05MB970:
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(10436049006162)(100405760836317)(95692535739014)(18271650672692);
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CO2PR05MB970B3F176C4C9E8462BEBD5C7440@CO2PR05MB970.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000700101)(100105000095)(100000701101)(100105300095)(100000702101)(100105100095)(6040450)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3231020)(100000703101)(100105400095)(93006095)(93001095)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123555025)(20161123562025)(20161123558100)(20161123564025)(20161123560025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(6072148)(201708071742011)(100000704101)(100105200095)(100000705101)(100105500095); SRVR:CO2PR05MB970; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000800101)(100110000095)(100000801101)(100110300095)(100000802101)(100110100095)(100000803101)(100110400095)(100000804101)(100110200095)(100000805101)(100110500095); SRVR:CO2PR05MB970;
x-forefront-prvs: 0471B73328
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 7a00b04d-2914-4b5c-890e-08d51bdb8bdf
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 25 Oct 2017 19:06:50.0326 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO2PR05MB970
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/9Fm48El5umKcgQ0qUGWPB1V6Jh4>
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: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:07:04 -0000

Julien,

Perhaps what is needed is an MPLS/GMPLS capabilities advertisement which lists explicitly what are the advertising node's capabilities.  I seem to remember some work years ago regarding the migration from MPLS to GMPLS and their attendant coexistence, and that might be useful as a starting point.

I am copying Adrian and Lou w/ the expectation that their memories are better than mine.  

Yours Irrespectively,

John


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg
> (ginsberg)
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 2:45 PM
> To: Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>
> Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-
> protocols
> 
> Julien -
> 
> I point out the newly added Section 6 in
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Disis-2Dte-
> 2Dapp_&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-
> s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=vRDDozQWVQuCQeQnNkzN6VSK3Plqawlv4L7W0R
> FNJ-Y&s=iiYJ0nRe9SlDwIoqwDZMGaiHCU4VYT_QsXyoGhaKOJc&e= .
> If you have not read this new section please do so. It may help explain why I
> think draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols is unneeded.
> 
> As regards advertising RFC 3473 support and/or other RSVP related capabilities,
> my opinion is unchanged. This first needs to be discussed in the appropriate
> WG (teas, ccamp, mpls - I leave that to yourself and others to choose) so that
> consensus on this requirement is first established. Then, if needed, an
> appropriate way to advertise this support (both in IS-IS and OSPF) would be
> defined. But IMO this does not belong in either of the two drafts mentioned
> above.
> 
> I understand that you may still disagree.
> 
>    Les
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Julien Meuric [mailto:julien.meuric@orange.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 7:38 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,
> >
> > My original post was discussing two parallel items:
> > - my unconditional support to the adoption of
> > draft-hegde-isis-advertising- te-protocols (irrespective of the
> > decision about my following proposal),
> > - a candidate use case, to be discussed "once WG document".
> >
> > For clarification, let me try to summarize the open questions:
> >
> > 1- Do we need to advertise RFC 3473 support on a per link basis?
> > You seem to argue that combining RSVP link advertisement and 3473
> > support as a node advertisement (RFC 5073) may address the issue. Fair
> > enough, provided implementations do support all necessary TLVs.
> > [Otherwise, collocated bits are not a big deal: RFC 5073 did not block
> > on a "qualitative" boundary between the M bit and the G bit.]
> >
> > 2- Should we restrain ourselves from improving an in-progress
> > specification where presence/absence of advertisement imply a support
> > that "depends upon the application"?
> > You say yes, I say no (you say goodbye...). Application-specific
> > semantics are an error-prone way to convey a basic binary information.
> > [To map it onto the example above, combining advertisement with
> > application-specific semantics before linking it to a barely
> > implemented node-related TLV would clearly limit the number of
> > implementations actually able to identify if a 3473-compliant RSVP
> > message can be sent to control a given link.]
> >
> > 3- When the poll in progress concludes, if the rough consensus on "2"
> > favors explicit capability advertisement, what solution should we progress?
> > The more I think about it, the more I believe that requesting a flag
> > allocation (e.g. 0x04) from sub-TLV 19 (created by RFC 5029) deserves
> > to be considered as part of the solution space for draft-hegde-isis-
> advertising-te-protocols.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Julien
> >
> >
> > Oct. 23, 2017 - ginsberg@cisco.com:
> > > 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
> > >>
> > >> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iana.org_
> > >>> assignments_isis-2Dtlv-2Dcodepoints_isis-2Dtlv-
> 2Dcodepo&d=DwICAg&c
> > >>> =HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LG
> > >>> hEWH-
> s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=vRDDozQWVQuCQeQnNkzN6VSK3Plqawlv4L7W0R
> F
> > >>> NJ-Y&s=j3pCfLzDhjBl4INO9pPA-Ml_3plUlQfcL_Nln7apnbk&e=
> > >>> in
> > >>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker
> > >>>>> .ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dhegde-2Disis-2Dadvertising-2Dte-2Dp&d=DwIC
> > >>>>> Ag&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0c
> > >>>>> T-h5LGhEWH-
> s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=vRDDozQWVQuCQeQnNkzN6VSK3Plqawl
> > >>>>> v4L7W0RFNJ-Y&s=urLF6Ya-h-JyUcprEz-
> 6Wi8Xa0TYy4wjOrn_Ek21tl8&e=
> > >>>>> ro
> > >>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.or
> > >>>>> g_mailman_listinfo_isis-
> 2Dwg&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBX
> > >>>>> eMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-
> s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5V
> > >>>>> E&m=vRDDozQWVQuCQeQnNkzN6VSK3Plqawlv4L7W0RFNJ-
> Y&s=0uBaEWzChU8vMa
> > >>>>> X_gnFWcaHmV_ScWM7cZMZtSoIkgEI&e=
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> Isis-wg mailing list
> > >>>> Isis-wg@ietf.org
> > >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org
> > >>>> _mailman_listinfo_isis-
> 2Dwg&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeM
> > >>>> K-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-
> s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m
> > >>>> =vRDDozQWVQuCQeQnNkzN6VSK3Plqawlv4L7W0RFNJ-
> Y&s=0uBaEWzChU8vMaX_gn
> > >>>> FWcaHmV_ScWM7cZMZtSoIkgEI&e=
> > >>>
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> Isis-wg@ietf.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_isis-
> 2Dwg&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-
> s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=vRDDozQWVQuCQeQnNkzN6VSK3Plqawlv4L7W0R
> FNJ-Y&s=0uBaEWzChU8vMaX_gnFWcaHmV_ScWM7cZMZtSoIkgEI&e=