Re: [Isis-wg] OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Fri, 09 June 2017 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@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 E53881292AE; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 8vzS9ZAu6Pmk; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3262F128C81; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1711; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1497027896; x=1498237496; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=E8IEW9dOCaz/+py6HZiTgLzpjOKwBfd4ij/Cf7D407s=; b=AJqUaALA9Q6VYeyi4t6R0sQZjqr2ibbRehILITd+LAsvvDjAYbq+rgpp DXrgvTaCQ7GI7QZUacYvtLBNjnVIOLWR8RzPXv1DdWt3/Uj/ecC1FbnTR FPHrMiTjvAcFnjyV/QyfNN3KOH1ru4uvYn3vGc4a2Iu5ol/286aWaDYfI 8=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,317,1493683200"; d="scan'208";a="695028762"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Jun 2017 17:04:54 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.52] (ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com [10.60.140.52]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v59H4rBB031698; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 17:04:54 GMT
Message-ID: <593AD535.2060905@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 19:04:53 +0200
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>
References: <D5602C7F.B268A%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D5602C7F.B268A%acee@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/YRwcpWnZtLm0yIBT4qe-MLqsgNQ>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE
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, 09 Jun 2017 17:04:59 -0000

Acee,

my question is whether we need the whole section 6 and the SID/Label 
Binding Sub-TLV that it specifies. In OSPF Binding SID is not used for 
SRMS advertisement like in ISIS.

thanks,
Peter



On 09/06/17 16:45 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> Corrected IS-IS WG alias – Please reply to this one.
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> From: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
> Date: Friday, June 9, 2017 at 10:42 AM
> To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>,
> "spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>" <spring@ietf.org
> <mailto:spring@ietf.org>>, "isis@ietf.org <mailto:isis@ietf.org>"
> <isis@ietf.org <mailto:isis@ietf.org>>
> Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org
> <mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>"
> <draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org
> <mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>>
> Subject: OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also
> effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS)
>
>     Hi OSPF, ISIS, and SPRING WGs,
>
>     As part of the Alia’s AD review, she uncovered the fact that the ERO
>     extensions in 6.1 and 6.2 are specified as far as encoding but are
>     not specified as far as usage in any IGP or SPRING document. As
>     document shepherd,  my proposal is that they simply be removed since
>     they were incorporated as part of a draft merge and it appears that
>     no one has implemented them (other than parsing). We could also
>     deprecate types (4-8) in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA Sub-TLV
>     registry to delay usage of these code points for some time (or
>     indefinitely ;^).
>
>     Thanks,
>     Acee
>