Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-07

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <> Mon, 27 November 2017 23:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33A92129432; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 15:53:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.52
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.52 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_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-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 pL0oWJP7SIgc; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 15:53:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51013129435; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 15:53:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=30394; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1511826790; x=1513036390; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=lnwPeHucQAZT02rSNPVM9y4EHhs1akdCfEvX3usAc7I=; b=KOkxvjrFD85OrEWxj2a8nawRfDUGv3wXmr4brMyIpBgMhvZWIIK3QnGP K/IEku3uZaELGrYhcoootsKzLKsW/dRhF9he4VTD+aONQ5SLtfGNolrnx MWpd0K8prWuyv5+Z01KgobOVlO48NylaiGLcCtI8wYhfk2w5SjVfvDqCp w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,466,1505779200"; d="scan'208,217";a="329279416"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 27 Nov 2017 23:53:09 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vARNr9LO001152 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 27 Nov 2017 23:53:09 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 17:53:01 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 17:53:02 -0600
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>, "Naiming Shen (naiming)" <>
CC: Christian Hopps <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-07
Thread-Index: AQHTXmMvlgkIDV+E7Ums3rNnnpfKNKMkmSOAgASe2oCAAB/jAP//n9VA
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 23:53:01 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_05bbc83ec6ea4c0db1c379c9f514e756XCHALN001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-07
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: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 23:53:25 -0000

Acee –

The IS-IS draft is more flexible in this regard than the OSPF equivalent (

In the IS-IS draft the text states:

“The Metric Offset field contains a 24-bit unsigned integer of an IS-
   IS metric that a neighbor SHOULD add to the existing, configured
   "default metric" contained within its IS Neighbors TLV…”

This allows that the operator could choose to set the neighbor metric to something other than “max-metric-1”.

Contrast this with the OSPF Draft which states:

“The node that has the link to be taken out of service MUST set metric
   of the link to MaxLinkMetric (0xffff)…”

The text in the IS-IS draft needs to remain as it is.


From: Isis-wg [] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 3:33 PM
To: Naiming Shen (naiming) <>
Cc: Christian Hopps <>rg>;;
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-07

Hi Naiming,

From: "Naiming Shen (naiming)" <<>>
Date: Monday, November 27, 2017 at 4:38 PM
To: Acee Lindem <<>>
Cc: Christian Hopps <<>>, "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-07

Hi Acee,

thanks for the comments. replies inline with <NS>…</NS>

On Nov 24, 2017, at 3:05 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <<>> wrote:


I support publication of the subject document. I do have comments.

  1. Why do you call the reverse-metricn field, “Metric Offset”? This
sounds like a remnant of some bad 20th century CLI….

the draft used to have the field as just ‘Metric’, since version 06, we responded
to the comments:

Section 2

From the description what is being advertised in the new TLV is not a metric but a metric offset i.e. you want the receiving IS to add the advertised value to its existing configured metric. Identifying the metric field as "metric offset" would make this point more clearly.

which is a good point I think. do you think there is an alternative name we
can use in replacing the ‘offset’ here?

How about just calling it the “Reverse Metric”?


  2. Please split the single sentence description immediately following
figure 1 into multiple sentences. Maybe just refer to “Elements of
Procedure” sections rather than one incomprehensible sentence.
  3. Pervasive editorial comment, the plural of acronyms is does NOT have
an apostrophe. For example, it is TLVs, not TLV’s.

will change those.

- Naiming


On 11/15/17, 5:43 PM, "Isis-wg on behalf of Christian Hopps"
<<> on behalf of<>> wrote:

The authors have asked for and we are starting a WG Last Call on

which will last an extended 3 weeks to allow for IETF100.


Isis-wg mailing list<>

Isis-wg mailing list<>