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

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Thu, 25 January 2018 12:32 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@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 7E99A1242F7; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 04:32:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.989
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.989 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 XYVq9pKLsqn0; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 04:32:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr0-f169.google.com (mail-wr0-f169.google.com [209.85.128.169]) (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 0C39E12025C; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 04:32:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr0-f169.google.com with SMTP id 16so7476270wry.12; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 04:32:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=Za8nLmuPBYm4Q8RIiNGTej1YET3fTmChwa67NGNPhwE=; b=q+K+Cd1hKRITqwnRHP93MAwuTgOs/Oz5gCT98yhOjj0fVuf/e8rkdrRChKRRRveFv+ hRMpQTDlPnEsfOMxLJWKnC+OEQ7tW/50utjwBxwzNaM9sGZkT5XWw4BvXyuv80w/XTqh IVGcwVAFciWADTMVAE0QG8NWT078zdft2P59sdtXPn5/021czbWSGUyjpeaip3bntJsC Z64yMpMkIPLK75NsflYs5nu2T+bKZPsP6fTCG93naP1Ad1CWTs8iz3pr/gDPZ3fOFOTO Ij3bbjDBSTyfoYdeYpFKuJN22DHWNSgRL+PoNfFeTQBNEgiE1FEyomlK5jMi0WYWdsYZ gCcw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=Za8nLmuPBYm4Q8RIiNGTej1YET3fTmChwa67NGNPhwE=; b=tsZtFVmhlb4qBH1tTBEfnJNB5Wgh05YvGx7mtyEIrrrGNxH1suOeZkg61+30Yj2VuS H2TqCB5l4CInq6yTq9QGfgSsOlG4/Z0W0txQ0+0miPXByZe8VPKyfC6MIPkbZWx+1KKp PzCKY9uYZdc3eDgyHq08r74yXfJwoXyJDWlgwEgS2lsCff4Px5ApZngr+sH74Y4RyySN Xc8dTz5DXjhe5/V+uq6JqntvJYm1Gc2AIzld7fczt9sd/UePTe2DJGeaV1yBrxEEAEc3 5R2lvNvytyQOS5ny+yf7vn1PpFy/E2K/x2Ui3J9trkPeI6hFP6mUTKYou7G75TeM3n+N 4Zdg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytepOEgRqB/te10CIcZQve3Vgh+p0EJk8K/ffBnW4Rl23D+Hm5pc ufFmt0hfOcy7vaKqdC8/VJhiN3kg
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227hiTplXKyGHkxbobVaxxQSccz3LnochrZJIxLlQkSS6giazYKSoofPYIcgLSsl4gAHT5NQjg==
X-Received: by 10.223.201.11 with SMTP id m11mr9505542wrh.6.1516883496151; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 04:31:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.126] (host213-123-124-182.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [213.123.124.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 44sm7394438wrt.46.2018.01.25.04.31.34 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 25 Jan 2018 04:31:35 -0800 (PST)
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Cc: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
References: <CAG4d1rfR5Y85T_wNSVXB0WL4C8THyAkgevr6DyH1xcO=R+sOVQ@mail.gmail.com> <0ae3753a-9037-9199-e61d-b4e15089be73@gmail.com> <CAG4d1rfB_iBFMi2zvC=HKZ8PeP7U4ncVkXrGDm7cZvuo9EF6Sg@mail.gmail.com> <5418BD5D-9E5E-49F1-A44C-FC60C3EDF391@cisco.com> <59176f74-28d1-416b-5737-91dbf6d3a833@gmail.com> <5057145faa60474e8870dc2456c3a350@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <4ec12a3e88ce419eb214da5f3009a4dd@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <79001995-1461-7087-2b9a-3ef5802c27f6@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:31:34 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4ec12a3e88ce419eb214da5f3009a4dd@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------E0FE38FFCF2F889062BE5348"
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/fpNWJN7MiS_uSOfJ9S7gLlwwesM>
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: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:32:41 -0000

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.

- 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 <mailto:acee@cisco.com>>; 
> Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com <mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>>
> *Cc:* OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>; 
> isis-wg@ietf.org <mailto: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><mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org>on
>     behalf of Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com><mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>
>     *Date: *Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 12:42 PM
>     *To: *Stewart Bryant
>     <stewart.bryant@gmail.com><mailto:stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
>     *Cc: *OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org><mailto:ospf@ietf.org>,
>     "isis-wg@ietf.org"<mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org><isis-wg@ietf.org><mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Isis-wg@ietf.org>
>
>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>