Re: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Mon, 12 June 2017 13:59 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 2640312EAF8; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 06:59:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 lH-owrl7E7ZH; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 06:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57ED312EAF3; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 06:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=26329; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1497275963; x=1498485563; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=C06udkKYh4XVKg3houL5DYrpINKYpG/RxhTgHmo0Cx4=; b=MrT56r7Iv+lYzDCEK484otY91nCrtXkMiE4nBY5orKiArpjDs6dFieLP +hY8b7G5WbiZgae7wNlINecj8nh2NSllluddZdyHlJGxL/oDC4Ty/R4Zc +qxgDPqepF0ggiOdGHOZLYZA3eTe74zHGPpMHJfvEEjEqSlod+rGSX8n7 I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CfAAAHnj5Z/5NdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgm9pYoENB4NtihiRbpYDghGGJAIaglU/GAECAQEBAQEBAWsohRg?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAyMKTBACAQgRAwEBASQEAwICAjAUCQgCBAENBYlIZLATgiaLZAEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAR2IQIMhhDsSATwGEIJcgmEFnj8Ck0eCBoVDhSeFFpR?= =?us-ascii?q?rAR84fwt0FUiFDBwZgU12hyENFweBBYENAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,333,1493683200"; d="scan'208,217";a="437134075"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Jun 2017 13:59:04 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (xch-rtp-013.cisco.com [64.101.220.153]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5CDx3jx006842 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 12 Jun 2017 13:59:04 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:59:03 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:59:03 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "bruno.decraene@orange.com" <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, "draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>
CC: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE
Thread-Index: AQHS44Ee2vve3xYYx0eAf+rmbIlD36IhQRIA
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 13:59:03 +0000
Message-ID: <D56414F9.B2911%acee@cisco.com>
References: <D5602C7F.B268A%acee@cisco.com> <8753_1497274667_593E992B_8753_641_5_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A4777B990@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <8753_1497274667_593E992B_8753_641_5_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A4777B990@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D56414F9B2911aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/lMOAsr3U-AxsDztxzInMssCNRyE>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE
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: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 13:59:26 -0000

Hi Bruno,

From: Bruno Decraene <bruno.decraene@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decraene@orange.com>>
Date: Monday, June 12, 2017 at 9:37 AM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, "draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>>, "draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>" <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>, "isis-wg@ietf.org<mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>" <isis-wg@ietf.org<mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: [OSPF] OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE

Hi Acee, authors

2 clarification questions inline [Bruno]

From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 4:46 PM
To: OSPF WG List; spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>; isis-wg@ietf.org<mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE

Corrected IS-IS WG alias – Please reply to this one.
Thanks,
Acee

From: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
Date: Friday, June 9, 2017 at 10:42 AM
To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>, "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>" <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>, "isis@ietf.org<mailto:isis@ietf.org>" <isis@ietf.org<mailto:isis@ietf.org>>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>>
Subject: OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS)

Hi OSPF, ISIS, and SPRING WGs,

As part of the Alia’s AD review, she uncovered the fact that the ERO extensions in 6.1 and 6.2 are specified as far as encoding but are not specified as far as usage in any IGP or SPRING document. As document shepherd,  my proposal is that they simply be removed since they were incorporated as part of a draft merge and it appears that no one has implemented them (other than parsing).
[Bruno] Is the option to move those Binding SID IGP extensions in a different (WG) document opened/considered? Any opinion on this?
If there is the energy to fully specify usage, than a separate document would make sense. I think there is a enough description of the binding SID in existing SPRING documents. However, it the ERO that is not specified.


We could also deprecate types (4-8) in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA Sub-TLV registry to delay usage of these code points for some time (or indefinitely ;^).
[Bruno] Are there reasons to make actions to delay/against such usage?
Since these are fully specified in the IGP Extensions, there are probably implementations that parse and validate the sub-TLVs.

Thanks,
Acee




Thanks
Regards,
--Bruno

Thanks,
Acee

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.