Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Fri, 26 January 2018 03:07 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@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 8D68412D811; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:07:30 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 dJg5SiQxlNq1; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:07:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot0-x22b.google.com (mail-ot0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22b]) (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 B592C12E872; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:07:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id x4so9008882otg.7; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:07:27 -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=kWHDl1AWD3RW2qw6oa5tHypT+/Awn87t67a0xGUMNXU=; b=sHnrC9BYeIw2MugAYPltP14TlA+OAQ9kxyliSDjKMgvrRS1S2kbzMM59mF5C5gi+QW IfXIldxdgjI2mvv2e7wD8j/4AeVDQx8kNc27x9wrHlE6jfrxdJNCJdscK+J9t1Nv/Rih mQ5jxtzwEqXsnzxBMkCKSLzEM8kmmCr7SBbpJBqdWw9cpSW7aB6kpR3EpHAp0/UJuq/X JqRpBJyNff8JBazE5axWqS3RmJaqXTZxS9Wg3J443beqssIGZksFgYnDwtg675xxAjWe VHKZMA+wwRSExVvcEBgVf5/5cHqxMC2xktkvM+wfJC2bRky74MK/0dsK8Zq8YqsO8TiN K4sQ==
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=kWHDl1AWD3RW2qw6oa5tHypT+/Awn87t67a0xGUMNXU=; b=qCkzz1cQR3CwV4vqCzLCsIgFkjt36YqkYo3TOXHm2ZIG0TzcQB4+gB208iQlgarPxg jHKQFQa+//OhP9WvY/Q8tVFx/tUtmxj+n9SgZdME/aXBbLGXRtFW9MMCMSzZNlStR9ZB Mlui+t5Sm73APbs8fl957xzRqMqoDYTAlP1RMWjEiMULzg1+L+suCAnf0eG+WRgBRMqL Jq8N8rDCiaL+EHdvOBcruZxbeSJabT9ErMAZ0L9c2DBUTwJZK/UX0effZ5vzdgh6Ot9k f5lYS+NYyCOMarshmr+Bbs74NEz4thm0XdAgSu0H5zPf09uod08V4MeS0Gs1/9ip1E32 dqqw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfrkpFUMIq3OyW+fQuwDSS+VjMF6G/qUtorBHROIMJrFLnSlvjM VamJ2lMsmmkFrApSRyns0Dppl8CZgt7dFD6Ujc0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227CrDdT5ipR5pl5GP2CuH1eBbVxb2Teu396lE/pKdXWWNo07hOJ5yMQTVBtJ67vpZEwI1qozlrBQwYgP0KSG5w=
X-Received: by 10.157.83.2 with SMTP id g2mr2332682oth.286.1516936046719; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:07:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.21.103 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:07:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <B38DA8C7-CA03-42F1-BF2C-5E9EF6A39790@nokia.com>
References: <CAG4d1rfR5Y85T_wNSVXB0WL4C8THyAkgevr6DyH1xcO=R+sOVQ@mail.gmail.com> <B38DA8C7-CA03-42F1-BF2C-5E9EF6A39790@nokia.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 22:07:25 -0500
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rd4Az1KzExrQ2vttJDQ4HBLMEzm3x88=iZAx47+xneESA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore)" <andrew.dolganow@nokia.com>
Cc: "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f4030435c280363dcf0563a532e5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/QBl40WeZ0CSoc9E_lt3HRMp_DFU>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter
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, 26 Jan 2018 03:07:30 -0000

Andrew,


I like that improvement.

Thanks,
Alia

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore) <
andrew.dolganow@nokia.com> wrote:

> One comment – I would add a bit of text at the end of the below-quoted
> sentence to ensure that “extensions planned to meet the needs” do not
> create stability/performance problems to IGPs. I proposed a text in red for
> that:
>
>
>
> The Link-State Routing (LSR) Working Group will coordinate with other
> working groups, such as RTGWG, SPRING, MPLS, TEAS, V6OPS, and 6MAN, to
> understand the need for extensions and to confirm that the planned work
> meets the needs and is compatible with both IS-IS and OSPF from
> functional, architectural and performance point of views
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> *From: *Isis-wg <isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Alia Atlas <
> akatlas@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 1:19 AM
> *To: *"isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>rg>, OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *[Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter
>
>
>
> Here is the proposed charter for the LSR working group
>
> that will be created from the SPF and ISIS working groups.
>
>
>
> This is scheduled for internal review for the IESG telechat on February 8.
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lsr/
>
>
>
> The Link-State Routing (LSR) Working Group is chartered to document
> current protocol implementation practices and improvements, protocol usage
> scenarios, maintenance and extensions of link-state routing interior
> gateway protocols (IGPs) with a focus on IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3.  The
> LSR Working Group is formed by merging the isis and ospf WGs and will take
> on all their existing adopted work at the time of chartering.
>
>
>
> IS-IS is an IGP specified and standardized by ISO through ISO 10589:2002
> and additional RFC standards with extensions to support IP that has been
> deployed in the Internet for decades.  For the IS-IS protocol, LSR’s work
> is focused on IP routing, currently based on the agreement in RFC 3563 with
> ISO/JTC1/SC6. The LSR WG will interact with other standards bodies that
> have responsible for standardizing IS-IS.
>
>
>
> OSPFv2 [RFC 2328 and extensions], is an IGP that has been deployed in the
> Internet for decades. OSPFv3 [RFC5340 and extensions] provides OSPF for
> IPv6 and IPv4 [RFC5838] which can be delivered over IPv6 or IPv4 [RFC 7949].
>
>
>
> The LSR Working Group will generally manage its specific work items by
> milestones agreed with the responsible Area Director.
>
>
>
> The following topics are expected to be an initial focus:
>
>
>
> 1) Improving OSPF support for IPv6 and extensions using OSPFv3 LSA
> Extendibility.
>
> 2) Extensions needed for Segment Routing and associated architectural
> changes
>
> 3) YANG models for IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3 and extensions
>
> 4) Extensions for source-destination routing [draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-
> routing]
>
> 5) Potentially, extensions to better support specific network topologies
> such as
>
> ones commonly used in data centers.
>
>
>
> The Link-State Routing (LSR) Working Group will coordinate with other
> working groups, such as RTGWG, SPRING, MPLS, TEAS, V6OPS, and 6MAN, to
> understand the need for extensions and to confirm that the planned work
> meets the needs.  LSR can coordinate with CCAMP and BIER on their
> extensions to the LSR IGPs as useful.  LSR may coordinate with other WGs as
> needed.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Alia
>