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

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Les 
> Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2018 2:33 PM
> *To:* Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>; Acee Lindem (acee) 
> <[e-mail]>; Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* OSPF List <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *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:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of 
> *Stewart Bryant
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2018 10:01 AM
> *To:* Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> Alia Atlas <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Cc:* OSPF List <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *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
>     <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>on
>     behalf of Alia Atlas <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Date: *Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 12:42 PM
>     *To: *Stewart Bryant
>     <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Cc: *OSPF WG List <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>,
>     "[e-mail]"<mailto:[e-mail]><[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *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
>     <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
>
>             [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>