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

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Fri, 26 January 2018 10:35 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 5573512D779; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 02:35:29 -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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] 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 G9ZVU9_40VPL; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 02:35:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr0-x229.google.com (mail-wr0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::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 C0A4512D847; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 02:35:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr0-x229.google.com with SMTP id 36so90743wrh.1; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 02:35:24 -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=eDcTIqGSYpJi6m5ClhV1xpQjqPgVdSwaqVXEyFxj7eI=; b=vershIcssG1YrRgTf8ARNxV23Hpkr679eHY5BP5IsFfS5tXl9qLXNzdZhb6hPHsV4d ioyG/FuO3y3mSgOMgTNxGYrWZw6UNq6Fo1bDJiOoi35bbkrHSpVmihugVspJwWLgdkwc sqv31zEILz/PCZBdh6ya0ywqp9y/8Bk3Twp2H9bxXWGomMlf0hywzY1Jn6fa8dKJbP6U MJT5ZgDQdqopzZTWbjioiLY5k/NnG+nlN7+yXJDXl0FTZIJHVkYVM81Tq0eoYuJdJSNx MSAWx3J3CKphvoRp01TgDuMQUD/Tk/DHjSJSWXB2X6twrh2l4U+SFJ8Uj0kD9eAVo44n +XNg==
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=eDcTIqGSYpJi6m5ClhV1xpQjqPgVdSwaqVXEyFxj7eI=; b=AIa5WGqCKxvOCOXGM4PyH1f5WjNZwyXtY0tdz6MVQPByImXclQadlVwCaPZGCYv2Wf Hs1p3dejCza8EjHxfbajqHkg1gQOpPaFfSD6GmwrBdGECO7Sb1A1lRWZAmmKXVsJutGg sfOlFMReNzh3ngIOWYoLFTJcNqoQF2UK4EAxQhoKuGO9oRAZiJSQMVZnI+soUsvT2d7y v9jGmDcQCXVXGARW+5DGtfIgSBhz3GVEr3vvWiruEZTA3bqYD+9F0iN4je/nnNNF5Gs4 rMOcksEQmzmIBDZVz0/eEM8jsAzCX4i2eI94ybRZgEq8UUwvbdGtDQRYLjVAhkxWCzyr khtg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytc99oehRXqK6sLk2fbMmfA7wCop8C8LPahUa3gV7jiDRJOsj2FJ HVzgyt65v1Osj5dHd2z84NWuatvt
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225d+Faitk8RwI7c4PjU8lToy/SOaAIKzz/o2HnGP61klJaDGHBEC35SVsU4wBlxDvriynG85Q==
X-Received: by 10.223.134.242 with SMTP id 47mr12288652wry.227.1516962922890; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 02:35:22 -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 63sm4260058wms.46.2018.01.26.02.35.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 26 Jan 2018 02:35:22 -0800 (PST)
To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, "Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore)" <andrew.dolganow@nokia.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Cc: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
References: <FBFC3934-FB67-46D1-9118-8F83D3A675D2@gmail.com>
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <506fe8f0-5782-9d82-3e46-1174d23a15e8@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 10:35:20 +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: <FBFC3934-FB67-46D1-9118-8F83D3A675D2@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------B0CD4264C72697275D1D35E6"
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/jIBHA3HRu91Hug1w5rMosSDfszw>
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 10:35:29 -0000

OK, I know when I am in the rough.

S


On 26/01/2018 03:27, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
>
> +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>
>     <mailto:stewart.bryant@gmail.com>; 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
>
>     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
>
> _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list 
> OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>