Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter
Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Thu, 25 January 2018 00:13 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 5FC9A12D858; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 16:13:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.988 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 0l0dc5DR2Url; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 16:13:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot0-x229.google.com (mail-ot0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::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 7A46C12AF6E; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 16:13:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot0-x229.google.com with SMTP id d9so5221628oth.6; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 16:13:05 -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=0p+UdpbSvwjV4suRBh560Da/UnJmw5A/WpSmF24d+hs=; b=q5taQx/wshh1L5l4IVuwTcFfZXR3vOcyKvmpXFZGqQYB5PdV1IAcpxneysu+Iqjxhy u96WIR1XJUaUCx7MUC5UvViuAQ8MZHU0y6rIsJGYFvc/NgxE5gez/5Fr6/zzqxUifUzr oPUBZtbFmFJIUDdk7QFFDQN50r2oM2vTDvn4M5tajPui7K91HNh/0hlhrn3JNvJOcX2e wEnZOqAZCmqgmxJvfLfFDQladnbi4zqXKtcZD06IG/cCbR2HIXsbV2PIT2+ECdgrkRCU 9nxh/+d78CPKcsdPa/10puGKrtRlq+dEDpzInRbBE6fDHc+Z9dm6awjSQtj8DB69HxUg +EGQ==
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=0p+UdpbSvwjV4suRBh560Da/UnJmw5A/WpSmF24d+hs=; b=OMTY+Nqh/9ETxVEtaLc3KS0ihtVNBrcyUTpYWDeub/u8qeDZFuo715Xfqn3tD7v8A3 s6b8riUL6YfID3d8gKf3Q6z2Ia4P84odfpbMuLJAGVm1HKp2Y2XCufEm1JaUTTvPYqsf yVzT70bA2jZqO0XM8NctvRbKcelx3I49Lg4C9qTOMcGeupM5KQ0KpIhjgNQbjFVERFzm kGB9ybHrN663vk70JMqeC3BblYGFXufNSfJ/q+3Ujpt9+bzuyIOSxY0tO/hz1Xagh27j cjNyrC1sPQPtAfNEEMLG6AJoLEOA5utHSRhw8SBQ9t0dYDZSChGQK/MwoaivuAf3/hHU 0vJw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfzpijQcC53RYRPPk2tQt6Qd8VubkNnRA6k4Pr5cQ4QmQyZs/ie qlMFJ5wvYB0jbTRkyLmB7feXwg+dUgjtneHQDXc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226dYQuwLegBsSppdCRC1EYmtc5mcUMAOUONXWAELK6gT4Jm5IuXgi//9M9DDOG8ZvfxdABuYCa3HzwvG39kzz8=
X-Received: by 10.157.34.105 with SMTP id o96mr10973811ota.309.1516839184662; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 16:13:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.21.103 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 16:13:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4ec12a3e88ce419eb214da5f3009a4dd@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.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> <5057145faa60474e8870dc2456c3a350@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <4ec12a3e88ce419eb214da5f3009a4dd@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:13:04 -0500
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rckadics-tG2FnUGFD=8vSAjn=K1ywB4+WDQp8NcFYhzw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1135575ac8878a05638ea43f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/mLTtgF30b6l_kqlSiaXdeaGuiSQ>
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: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:13:08 -0000
Hi Les, Thanks for the suggestions! I've modified the paragraph about IS-IS to read: "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-WG’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. LSR-WG will continue to support Layer 2 routing (for example TRILL work) as needed." and updated to "In addition to ongoing maintenance, the following topics are expected to be among the work-items at the time of chartering." to clarify that the list isn't constrictive. I didn't go for IP/IPv6 since IP should cover both IPv4 & IPv6. The updated version (with Stewart's comments addressed as well) can be found as charter-ietf-lsf-00-04 at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lsr/ Regards, Alia On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com > 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>; Acee Lindem (acee) < > acee@cisco.com>; Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> > > *Cc:* OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>; 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 > <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>; Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> > *Cc:* OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>; 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> <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>, "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 > > > > > > >
- [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] Link-State Routing WG charter Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] Link-State Routing WG charter Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] Link-State Routing WG charter Julien Meuric
- Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] Link-State Routing WG charter Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore)
- Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore)
- Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] Link-State Routing WG charter Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] Link-State Routing WG charter Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter Alia Atlas