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

<stephane.litkowski@orange.com> Thu, 12 October 2017 10:33 UTC

Return-Path: <stephane.litkowski@orange.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 B549213445C; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 03:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.618
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.618 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 8Ai1xQEZYHqz; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 03:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (mta241.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B56B133064; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 03:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar04.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.6]) by opfedar25.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 87CB81207FB; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:33:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.58]) by opfedar04.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 6DE974004C; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:33:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::65de:2f08:41e6:ebbe]) by OPEXCLILM33.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::3881:fc15:b4b2:9017%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:33:15 +0200
From: <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>
To: "draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols@ietf.org" <draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols
Thread-Index: AQHTPxYCagctwyfclkS27qp0xRNSfqLgCedA
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 10:33:14 +0000
Message-ID: <6757_1507804395_59DF44EB_6757_192_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF921EA87066@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <87infr1xw0.fsf@chopps.org>
In-Reply-To: <87infr1xw0.fsf@chopps.org>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/X7wqKcfSafvMQ0GmkmeduS5tkFQ>
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: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 10:33:19 -0000

Hi Authors,

One question, why do you think it is really needed to introduce the SR flag ? Couldn't it be deduced from the presence of an Adj-SID and the SR router cap ?
The SR flag unset while the router supports SR looks strange to me. Why do you want to prevent "SR forwarding" on a link if the node supports SR ?

" With this information, a centralized
   application can decide to use a different path for that traffic by
   using a different label stack."
In such a case, the usage of a Node-SID may be complex, as the Node-SID may cross a link with the SR flag unset. This will force the controller to use Adj-SIDs only. 
If the controller uses only Adj-SIDs, then an implementation can allow the user to prevent the advertisement of Adj-SIDs on a particular link.

Could you clarify the use case here ?


Thanks,



-----Original Message-----
From: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2017 04:43
To: isis-wg@ietf.org
Cc: isis-chairs@ietf.org; isis-ads@ietf.org; draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols@ietf.org
Subject: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols

Hi Folks,

The authors have requested the IS-IS WG adopt

    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols/

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.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.