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

Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 26 January 2018 03:27 UTC

Return-Path: <jefftant.ietf@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 66040124205; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:27:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.988 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no 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 fIkz2M8n33IH; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:27:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x229.google.com (mail-pf0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::229]) (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 5EB4A12D850; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:27:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x229.google.com with SMTP id c6so7349209pfi.8; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:27:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :mime-version; bh=svPmu3eN6ZOEjNUlnpWZ1NR64Q2s/e6yiyBaLl+YDyo=; b=pFWCw5GxtgAV0WT79o3uS9x+iKST0MO7x0nEihdGYV8FR23QS7apDBNto4KawsG0OX ogof1z8oS6xT4nPgljeNhWIixdBFztR7+01zNxMiph4js6yeg5JXe78LDsIBO4y4W17D zZzVBf2/f9tma17DKfpG+a0E/FajJt7Y774dNtmC8Z2gBEs2YqsonmZzPvmHZGg8yhon zvaizu550rwNEMPPbl6WoxWAcvLf2J7VfM8+uvYNSD7jvC7SWpy+TngQK0FDi5eGygCK BbyGwwpDQC5DSDHBzFBfv1Xr378eITq2nUnyI7rmC7ONLp0bj6tft6/dyX4yX0pZtGVM NWNw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id :thread-topic:mime-version; bh=svPmu3eN6ZOEjNUlnpWZ1NR64Q2s/e6yiyBaLl+YDyo=; b=SKVpIiBzFhnzJjQji97PRUfg1RYcSNQGXu7EMMNaIPZMSjr5ibimVZwg5sXzEnVA5r DoImz8nYoMXAj95JooGwpSRqkQhb8kSW6l3y+rMqhjjlvFf1jf0k3AMnm+TRIE3dm/oh NbWzRjHbKqwVW1A7nQKR+PO76aiZf7R+7GX5N87GfFLctpJxDC4r7jEQ0el5DbLjTfID 3FRghDMXMgJnjjLjBCklQBb74mlMHmhRAmKWOdr82rt6T5ViS5LfUXW2Q3ory328On1Y 0aWZj5tuttcgQMXlxpCPI+fFxw8DSzHjd7WBDGXIpUajd+sJmRKKjSumCuKZrNaOVUht USaw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdg1o6GtDVckVHNemvnXSKok3rKvh8F2x3Yxjf2RNnDnpHLYRlY x9ndLzJJRB/SY22sMO+r3x8w6Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x22616urs1NmqrlwsmdxrgEz7z1o5HiMjhaE/eCLbBT25FWmwbl2ONSzCSvIMXt6kHRtcL7PH0g==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7142:: with SMTP id u2-v6mr5461401plm.423.1516937222719; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:27:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.25] ([76.126.247.72]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b8sm15725495pff.31.2018.01.25.19.27.01 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:27:01 -0800 (PST)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.27.0.171010
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:27:00 -0800
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore)" <andrew.dolganow@nokia.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
CC: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <FBFC3934-FB67-46D1-9118-8F83D3A675D2@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3599753221_292533547"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/e5H7BavvLwtNKaYMBImoSZXzSmU>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] 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 03:27:06 -0000

+2

 

we already have a kitchen-sink protocol to do so…

 

Cheers,

Jeff

 

From: OSPF <ospf-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore)" <andrew.dolganow@nokia.com>
Date: Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 18:02
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>om>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>om>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>om>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Cc: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>rg>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter

 

+1 to that

 

From: Isis-wg <isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Date: Friday, January 26, 2018 at 3:18 AM
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>om>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>om>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Cc: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>rg>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter

 

I agree with Les about being selective about LSR non-routing usage.

 

Thanks,

Acee

 

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
Date: Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 1:59 PM
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>om>, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>om>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Cc: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>rg>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter

 

Stewart -

 

From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stewart.bryant@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 4:32 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>om>; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>om>; Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Cc: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>rg>; isis-wg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter

 

 

Les

I agree wrt L2

Isn't another focus collecting the information to feed into an SDN controller via BGP-LS? That is really network layer  state collection rather than routing in the traditional sense.

 

[Les:] Please do not propose such language. This raises the old discussion about using the IGPs as a transport for “just about anything”.

We long ago agreed that TE related information was “routing information” – if for no other reason than it was grandfathered in. But this does not alter the IGP’s focus on routing.

I know we “stretch” the definition with things like MSD and S-BFD discriminators, but I see these as carefully considered choices – and ones w modest impact.

Institutionalizing the IGPs as an “SDN Distribution Protocol” is not something I want in the charter.

   Les

 

- Stewart

 

On 24/01/2018 23:09, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:

It occurred to me after sending this that perhaps a better statement as regards IS-IS would be:

 

“LSR’s work is focused on IP/IPv6 and Layer 2 routing…”

 

though admittedly there isn’t much going on as regards Layer2 and IS-IS at the moment. 

 

   Les

 

 

From: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 2:33 PM
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>om>; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>om>; Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Cc: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>rg>; isis-wg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter

 

Since a charter only provides a general definition of the work that falls within the purview of the WG it requires some adjunct to keep track of the current priorities.

That could be the list of milestones (which OSPF has regularly maintained – but IS-IS has not) – or it could simply be the list of active WG documents.

I just don’t see that we should expect the charter to express “work in progress” now – or in the future.

 

Alia – do you think the statement about IS-IS:

 

“LSR’s work is focused on IP routing…”

 

Could be improved by saying

 

“LSR’s work is focused on IP/IPv6 routing…”

 

???

 

   Les

 

 

From: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 10:01 AM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>om>; Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Cc: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>rg>; isis-wg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter

 

Yes that fixes that.

How about:

s/The following topics are expected to be an initial focus:/ In addition to ongoing maintenance, the following topics are expected to be an initial focus:/

I am just concerned that we need not to loose focus on work in progress.

- Stewart

 

On 24/01/2018 17:54, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:

How about:

 

LSR will coordinate with CCAMP and BIER on their extensions to the LSR IGPs as

applicable to LSV protocol operation and scale. 

 

Thanks,

Acee 

 

From: Isis-wg <isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 12:42 PM
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Cc: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>rg>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter

 

Hi Stewart, 

 

Thanks for the quick feedback.  Feel free to provide suggestions for text changes if you have them.

You've certainly written enough charters :-)

 

Regards,

Alia

 

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote:

Alia,

I think that this merger is long overdue, and hopefully it will help new features to be written in an aligned way.

I think the remit to perform general maintenance should slightly clarified since the way the charter is written they look like they are at a lower priority than the enumerated list.

I would have thought that "LSR can coordinate with CCAMP and BIER on their extensions " should have been more directive. 

- Stewart 

 

On 24/01/2018 17:18, Alia Atlas wrote:

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







_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
Isis-wg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
 

 

 

 

_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf