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

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Wed, 24 January 2018 18:02 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@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 2113A12E035; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:02:13 -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 oDLRp_0cQK88; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:02:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot0-x22b.google.com (mail-ot0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22b]) (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 0E5AA12DA6F; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:01:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id p36so4357477otd.10; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:01:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=93uY5XRNEHK5OHGmps1BhiwucfQEfjn1dUT2bwQzcTg=; b=XV0Xv/7MIYojs2Eg3b56lvkRlqQ+PNAVKYcqg5bEEcPel1+AUei8P5pMTIKP6YR0Yt kt+l1UcuJ44TWRkeMETccPhaeA6nDsT2FLUPzY69auiv/v4LeKJN027/sOYtpIbxUISh S6+DKYoezI9s0/ncDETmr82SC6NqGBlk0Lk/5Cjfz0+N2222lZSnngRPXv2m/+68s0Ja vktJzf43T6HG9fWbA5xgyth6AoBsprPry0WT7KhBqCxTggTZhL86D/RQTGXQLDHerU4I BwiDqwru5/SpeGt0ObSV7kEwYd3MGW4rxL6Oz8+wIPf+aiLtJXutY63aYIhdKRNHndja 9xRg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=93uY5XRNEHK5OHGmps1BhiwucfQEfjn1dUT2bwQzcTg=; b=M3EZxUuQYYXM/IbnmXTOXOABycrf3A7w8wQqlwdhPwoa8wX41l2rRdBiJib+rlpZgD 9e1gqJeZZMx4Gotd2RV2Nj8JDvmNk9B+GNgh+XltPOqRg3EZ14yPe94vWLznOv1eh5V2 o0V3y0emDB0ngvljExnNXFzSiZebn0BvCFU4VSuDf355ujVMkWtCuArtwkKklIdaCwnS qp8toGuWEfj659IDC43sLlrSk+5CGFx8GkDTArOmKa52OxqPkTEUi6Ch3lwbnqoza7J5 lSn4GrUSCzcatAKIe0rLgOKlB07uoBLdInkwLtELbO5Q5bi7K42aDsg6+7KPKocusnYw oP1w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdxTftg2Pl+A0uU+3w49RfUiNMM+EEeNPAestLO31NO3SO5Cqwu bdNF7TPnBZLvTSGE+Z64GvsfWSrN6LCXA9sC2BM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224Cle5NDYUcH+2vcMYKfDNVFJs/9uHBeTthERWHMIJgBIta4kPCtqOLFQb+jWZan7ID6EQex8h1R+G4lM5uNdQ=
X-Received: by 10.157.17.98 with SMTP id p31mr3042599otp.362.1516816918047; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:01:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.21.103 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:01:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <59176f74-28d1-416b-5737-91dbf6d3a833@gmail.com>
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>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:01:57 -0500
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rdpHwe-RXMx1YBo13EvTL48JBckpRKEWP54gTHXLhzqXQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Cc: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113e15d696f1c605638975f9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/jSk-S9Id6kzFki4QeV9hOkMmlS0>
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 18:02:13 -0000

Sounds good to both.

Thanks,
Alia

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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> <isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org> on
> behalf of Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> <akatlas@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 12:42 PM
> *To: *Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org> <ospf@ietf.org>rg>, "isis-wg@ietf.org"
> <isis-wg@ietf.org> <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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>