Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols
"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Wed, 25 October 2017 18:45 UTC
Return-Path: <ginsberg@cisco.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 004551389AC for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 11:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 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_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 jg3pldvcMUp6 for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 11:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F93313899A for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 11:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11188; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1508957113; x=1510166713; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=pkOtT2ceZqm5iFjS2pVVUun8nE+MoUF0Ypw2i6AvUPk=; b=U1OlnfG8TZo3tWYKM8WLCEnXQogGfSDvrte7wIfdCBVjfqNG3S9xms8e NUBsIrCmEpB9WMTnEKwofk5pA+9PBqXvg1yg39Yp/d32V4ybpx807gybH +4/h12hyWgYBixpxAI/ivW7f8ZwB1m2M7xr/1pKC+10qCaZAx5fgsak3V k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CdAQB62vBZ/4sNJK1RChkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNfZG4nB4NzmSqBepY6ghEKGAuFGAIahFNAFwECAQEBAQEBAWsohR0BAQEEAQEhEToGBQwEAgEIEQQBAQMCIwMCAgIlCxQBCAgCBA4FCBOKBRCpUIIninYBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYEPgh+CB4FQgWgBgyqEWgVMgm6CYQWhIVICh2ONCYIehXuEAYcVlVQCERkBgTgBIAE2gVt6FUmCZIJcHIFndolHgTKBEQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.43,432,1503360000"; d="scan'208";a="21498268"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 25 Oct 2017 18:45:12 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (xch-rcd-001.cisco.com [173.37.102.11]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v9PIjCqA004910 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:45:12 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 13:45:11 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 13:45:11 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>
CC: "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols
Thread-Index: AQHTPxYHrHG571lUpkWJFBhDImQkMqLtMUCAgAFoPwCAAy2NAP//ufoAgAOSRwD//+fm4A==
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:45:11 +0000
Message-ID: <fe72c37b0b934f6d9adf07ff4ea2d7a3@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.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>
In-Reply-To: <60aa5abe-eb20-8639-e3fe-0093c5456d50@orange.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.27.12]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/WXQP5p1jm5rd6QM0oT2kc7NLWQE>
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 18:45:16 -0000
Julien - I point out the newly added Section 6 in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-te-app/ . 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://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepo > >>> 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://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-p > >>>>> 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://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Isis-wg mailing list > >>>> Isis-wg@ietf.org > >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg > >>>
- [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-isis-a… Christian Hopps
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… bruno.decraene
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Chris Bowers
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… bruno.decraene
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Chris Bowers
- [Isis-wg] 答复: WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Lizhenbin
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Imtiyaz
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Paul Mattes
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Pushpasis Sarkar
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… prz
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Julien Meuric
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Julien Meuric
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Julien Meuric
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-is… John E Drake