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

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Wed, 24 January 2018 18:01 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 A2635127136; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:01:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, SPF_PASS=-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 NlugX2xdtmTC; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:01:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr0-x22e.google.com (mail-wr0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22e]) (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 5573D12706D; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:01:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id z48so4962708wrz.6; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:01:31 -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=CtBqqJZkpR6Z6YqhkWH4a7Rk7fPLW9ladxyqTa8hOJU=; b=CIuwVG1xMuRhxrCD3b4hzWwn9Ics/Z39pdfoOP/PfiBXq9YAKHZUQRKZ1uheg9r/nq 2FofRFie55/LgY8PyY21s7QKZpDhfwDtkX3nu3xfpDyR9u88YkA+ZKvI7sqltV0IVjlO oCBeK7QI4vye29UDle0pLx0ss+snsLeGlc+TvM5NuygibSj9Yu7XpSraa+0+c9kVcYOD w5lwaN9K8qrWKEazpfSR3odCn/KSCPlAX4HY8ej6H1RCn17mQGQ6b67xLg2TVbpiZ7rt Thow/GcXHrMCgHNAxFtOX0RN1d//XOOd8UfoUccFjCdxIw7mqTzYVFtYwW6hVfNtQHUC F2Og==
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=CtBqqJZkpR6Z6YqhkWH4a7Rk7fPLW9ladxyqTa8hOJU=; b=k5nGRDHJsz2YgcOWS3J6Au9o9fzpn2l4viz5A+T9/ik8yfH0iJkXQY8iIHlaC7l3+O yrX8D/vE5u5J/UZFyV2rAw/zy6eTtrK8pEQ/+XrBA+jKkQ9A1mV/wuNM79/CJhoNT1J4 H3szg851qz1RhJ3NKmmSHDTEgmKqNzrlH7bDVglUD/FRhoqRkfR8RPOLC1EM8r7errJY doqMnTNXVEskJepQaAtbCgQ5pIpdqMUxB+Sdy+K4djX3xocyE+kUujAdhAJwoeI3S0kO Twv/9a0SMIxPJs1VUovZJ2H+/zv4y18P5V7yQJERivPz9SYOxC0/GEr1b2t4oxCZRBwq KKJA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfpUHq3H5f57nk8JCorPg223aSBJ6rgXyAvu0HM0EGU/vISv3PP /zJhrZcmSzJfTGT/AOcX4ob1vvKI
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225TaSuGkLWwgxcisF/SbL/GbkftDJx5vFz0LxOobqSbcQelFH75NVb0psXdCnn2IGD98GBmMg==
X-Received: by 10.223.170.208 with SMTP id i16mr6670009wrc.90.1516816889609; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:01:29 -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 z99sm8128209wrb.79.2018.01.24.10.01.25 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:01:29 -0800 (PST)
To: "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>
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <59176f74-28d1-416b-5737-91dbf6d3a833@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:01:20 +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: <5418BD5D-9E5E-49F1-A44C-FC60C3EDF391@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------7006EB3CB0DFC4C551C8D908"
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/hUXobU90xaB26Lcit0QJ8qaQXiQ>
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: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:01:35 -0000

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<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
>