Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions

Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com> Tue, 20 February 2018 15:38 UTC

Return-Path: <tonysietf@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 7A8A712D873; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 07:38:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 cnZ6NJk_m9fc; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 07:38:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr0-x232.google.com (mail-wr0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::232]) (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 0B49C12D871; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 07:38:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr0-x232.google.com with SMTP id s5so15636874wra.0; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 07:38:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6DPnM9CdKFtRRMjhEDR4+tN/lpKO51FdFEX8hq8dsd8=; b=SphqQRojRrIvy5bO0SO5MlvthFV3JQmOTu7VZhKKDI1Jug8dxXfjheN4fRW2iTQKbh HmX4nxmyEX1B4JLcCq2LumPM+OImqhvDLFBBU/Et1tIRgNy3bqIni5zVcQXjaI0ZDvgw bN/9ijzGxSscOPVKqO/fjo6Bpx7N1NmepHfPJIsx4qb+hCaL4EYTx6zPeagnvG2iuYCx NfR3n/rDBuwlHX8LrDPdW4+KDf5uBXVFRDgfT7X4IvwDUvUNdNzQmTCctAEM7p0W9GVR 43XZn04VW2uQRekaHkgLO9eJN8YDLbaCz7lcFKr88ipf+mDGsjUA2i8gY9VoR82WwNQM Gstw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6DPnM9CdKFtRRMjhEDR4+tN/lpKO51FdFEX8hq8dsd8=; b=tQf+4NKth0//bIP3cPXtHTopFAdKoXhEuh36B0X3qff6rGoWPf5nzYww+2OFmME2MK NpO/nbjc8rH+4YISyLa/pujdiCoXIP7qUV/d8B6eRR0YtulxwrIdIveDnQRByOKjE0wY mcq3o6XjZ2lYAsgLorI/UYoH+tfTqPLWLSNxst2+5TsoJvUWiT2LMTpeW5dOBE8BeGCF GTbQUPtZvxmc/KWk4G62wUFXWAV49cHaNn5MJBRngumt8yB0OSZlQi5y2evg8qJgdLLE P+DrSNti4crXABzU9Gbzgc9D2eEKuLvMkzHzYB0JCkJyk+4JOX85AlxVgLZM2doanFzk ZLKg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPCrgwDCbnUikxEL8LTPt8W6pEGMdGZ4jO+e3UxozGtLC3nKtNG5 GOAs8qUh9lOdnfByOsY2Qlo643itwcs+H0bcHuMCFg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224BO9sbzLmE52f4eGm9igTA/ouRsa8INf3uypXeFBQQuBk+ilpxPr0o8Wm232UI9SCps4BxUU5b4jfOPfyh5po=
X-Received: by 10.80.184.134 with SMTP id l6mr813415ede.250.1519141084496; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 07:38:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.80.231.7 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 07:37:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rc8=2gnEj4vTjjAja5SPfezBT+hBKRg219uLgndvA78Kg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAG4d1remdUKutEdc2DU6Gaan3z63CAZVo1D-L0GXg_=eHJxffw@mail.gmail.com> <9778B23E32FB2745BEA3BE037F185DC4A5BA61A3@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com> <CAG4d1rc8=2gnEj4vTjjAja5SPfezBT+hBKRg219uLgndvA78Kg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 07:37:24 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+wi2hPoTA0u2rx0f5eoBsoOAH+m1uN0ggr=P7sSYFcX=1qQxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Cc: Senthil Dhanaraj <senthil.dhanaraj@huawei.com>, BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org list" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045c7fa8b48d730565a69873"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/IppVs9m--KXJSzLO5R61D0SpO-A>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions
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: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 15:38:08 -0000

all the implementations I am aware off can adjust to Option A) with BAR
registry without problems, neither do I see a problem with option B) given
we are talking only 0/0 being in IGP RFC @ this point in time. thanks. tony

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 9:15 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>; wrote:

> I have one additional question for those with implementations or testing
> them.
>
> What is the impact of going with your preferred option in terms of
> interoperability?  It may be early enough that changes can happen, but more
> feedback is needed.
>
> For those favoring Option B, could you send email to the list providing
> exact text so we have the details?
>
> For those favoring the current status without an IANA registry, are you
> able to handle one being imposed during IESG Review?  It is an obvious
> concern to raise.  Are you just prolonging or postponing the discussion?
>
> Regards,
> Aka
>
>
>
> On Feb 19, 2018 11:53 PM, "Senthil Dhanaraj" <senthil.dhanaraj@huawei.com>;
> wrote:
>
>> +1 to Option-B
>>
>> Seems future proof to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Senthil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* BIER [mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Alia Atlas
>> *Sent:* 20 February 2018 03:21
>> *To:* BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>;; isis-wg@ietf.org list <isis-wg@ietf.org>;
>> *Subject:* [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions
>> and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions
>>
>>
>>
>> As the Sponsoring AD for draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-07 and
>> draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions-12, I have been following the discussion
>> on the mailing list with interest.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have not seen clear consensus for any change.
>>
>>
>>
>> Let me be clear on what I see the options are from the discussion.  Then
>> I'll elaborate
>>
>> a bit on how you can express your perspective most usefully.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) Current Status:  Bier Algorithm (BAR) field is 8 bits.  Currently,
>> only value 0 is specified.  The drafts do not have an IANA registry - with
>> the expectation that one will be created when the first additional use is
>> clear.  It is possible that there will be objections from the IESG to
>> progressing without an IANA registry.  Given the lack of clarity for future
>> use-cases and after discussion, I decided not to force one after my AD
>> review - but I will not push back against having a BIER IANA registry if
>> raised by others.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2) Option B:  Add a BAR sub-type of 8 bits.  This would modify the
>> current TLVs.
>>
>>    Define an IANA registry for the BAR type.  The meaning of the BAR
>> sub-type derives
>>
>>    from the BAR type.   We can debate over the registration policy for
>> the BAR type.
>>
>>
>>
>> 3) Option C: Change the BAR field to be 16 bits and define an IANA
>> registry.  Part of the range can be FCFS with Expert Review, part can be
>> Specification Required, and part can be IETF Consensus.
>>
>>
>>
>> 4) Option D: At some point in the future, if there is an actual
>> understood and documented need, a BAR sub-type could be added a sub-TLV.
>> The length of the BAR sub-type could be determined when the sub-TLV is
>> defined.
>>
>>
>>
>> Given
>>
>>
>>
>>   a) option D exists
>>
>>   b) there is currently only one defined value for BAR
>>
>>   c) I do not see strong consensus for change to one particular other
>> option
>>
>>
>>
>> I see no current reason for a change and I certainly see absolutely no
>> reason for
>>
>> a delay in progressing the documents.
>>
>>
>>
>> I do want to be clear about what the WG wants to do on this issue.
>> Therefore, here is
>>
>> my following request.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please send your feedback to the mailing list as follows:
>>
>>
>>
>> IF you prefer or can accept the current status, please say so.  No more
>> justification
>>
>> or reasoning is required. I just don't want the bulk of folks who are
>> content to be
>>
>> overlooked by those suggesting change.
>>
>>
>>
>> IF you prefer or can accept the current status, but think there should be
>> an IANA registry
>>
>> as is usual for managing code-points, please say so.  No more
>> justification is needed.
>>
>>
>>
>> IF you prefer Option B, C, and/or D, please say so with your
>> explanation.  More technical depth than "'we might need it" would be
>> helpful; the availability of sub-TLVs already
>>
>> provides future proofing.
>>
>>
>>
>> IF you have a clear technical objection to why the Current Status is not
>> acceptable,
>>
>> please express that - with clear details.
>>
>>
>>
>> IF you feel that additional code-points should be allocated in a BAR IANA
>> Registry or
>>
>> have thoughts on the appropriate policy, please say so with your
>> explanation for what
>>
>> those should be.
>>
>>
>>
>> Unless I see clear and strong consensus for something other than the
>> Current Status,
>>
>> that will remain.
>>
>>
>>
>> IF there is clear and strong consensus for Option B, C, or D, or adding
>> an IANA registry with particular values, then it will be possible to have a
>> change up through this Weds night - with a 1 week WGLC on that particular
>> technical change.
>>
>>
>>
>> My priority is to have the base BIER specifications published as Proposed
>> Standards so that more BIER implementations and deployment can be done.  I
>> would like the WG to wrap up the core work (as expressed in the proposed
>> recharter) so that you all can look
>>
>> at how to use it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Given this topic was raised last Weds and given that there are no
>> technical objections raised to the documents as are, there isn't much time
>> - so please just respond to this email ASAP.  My deadline for a decision is
>> 6pm EST on Weds.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Alia
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> BIER@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>
>