Re: [Isis-wg] New Layer2 extensions to ISIS - thorough review will berequired

Peter Ashwood-Smith <Peter.AshwoodSmith@huawei.com> Mon, 26 April 2010 01:00 UTC

Return-Path: <Peter.AshwoodSmith@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3383428C0F8 for <isis-wg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 18:00:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.158
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.158 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.418, BAYES_20=-0.74]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vfj+PZOrZyK9 for <isis-wg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 18:00:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usaga02-in.huawei.com (usaga02-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 999753A6A1D for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 18:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usaga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0L1G008KELFZ4H@usaga02-in.huawei.com> for isis-wg@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 18:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LapPSmith ([10.47.143.24]) by usaga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0L1G00IXPLFV7M@usaga02-in.huawei.com> for isis-wg@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:59:55 -0400
From: Peter Ashwood-Smith <Peter.AshwoodSmith@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163980F89BBF4@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net>
To: 'John E Drake' <jdrake@juniper.net>, 'David Allan I' <david.i.allan@ericsson.com>, 'David Ward' <dward@juniper.net>, 'isis-wg' <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Message-id: <000501cae4db$cb151e10$188f2f0a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Thread-index: AcrjCpFI/xK+V3+XRmKiuuE0umjLQgAv4CtwACe/tYAACbPwIAASFrjg
Cc: 'Christian Hopps' <chopps@rawdofmt.org>, 'Adrian Farrel' <Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com>, 'Ralph Droms' <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] New Layer2 extensions to ISIS - thorough review will berequired
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 26 Apr 2010 01:00:28 -0000

Well .. I see the emails have been flying over the weekend. 

Obviously I agree with Dave, John, Paul and Don that 802.1aq should be
separate, that it only needs a few TLVs with no behavioral changes to IS-IS
and that OTV needs to follow the proper standards process, for example by
presenting and being accepted in the L2VPN working group. 

We have no problem with the few TLV's we request being subject to scrutiny.
The important ones have had (in slightly varied form) live deployments and
several implementations now for well over a year.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of John E Drake
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 2:44 PM
To: John E Drake; David Allan I; David Ward; isis-wg
Cc: Christian Hopps; Adrian Farrel; Ralph Droms
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] New Layer2 extensions to ISIS - thorough review will
berequired

Hi,

In particular, it appears that OTV is out of scope wrt the current charter.
Also, no one likes proprietary extensions more than I do, but they should
have their own document and codepoints.

Thanks,

John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of John E Drake
> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 4:19 AM
> To: David Allan I; David Ward; isis-wg
> Cc: Christian Hopps; Adrian Farrel; Ralph Droms
> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] New Layer2 extensions to ISIS - thorough review
> will be required
> 
> +1
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf
> > Of David Allan I
> > Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 9:31 AM
> > To: David Ward; isis-wg
> > Cc: Christian Hopps; Adrian Farrel; Ralph Droms
> > Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] New Layer2 extensions to ISIS - thorough review
> > will be required
> >
> > Hi Folks:
> >
> > While the decision of splitting the drafts is in discussion (and that is
> a
> > direction I favor as the scope of IS-IS changes is radically different
> and
> > disjoint between the "layer 2"s), the question needs to be asked "what
> in
> > the draft survives the split as WG items".
> >
> > 802.1aq - yes
> > TRILL - yes
> > OTV - does not belong here, it is proprietary...
> >
> > If OTV is standardized it COULD be considered by the WG at some point in
> > the future. Right now it is simply an wholly inappropriate complication
> in
> > addressing the two technologies the WG has agreed to...
> >
> > It should be removed from the draft and a new version published ASAP.
> >
> > My 2 cents
> > D
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf
> > Of David Ward
> > Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 1:30 PM
> > To: isis-wg
> > Cc: Christian Hopps; Ralph Droms; Jari Arkko; Adrian Farrel
> > Subject: [Isis-wg] New Layer2 extensions to ISIS - thorough review will
> be
> > required
> >
> > All -
> >
> > The WG Chairs would like to be clear on the approach to review and
> > progression of the draft: draft-ietf-isis-layer2. There will be a
> request
> > for the routing directorate, specific guest reviewers and a lengthy
> > community review. There will also be a requirement of multiple,
> > interoperable implementations. Whether we split the draft into TRILL,
> .aq,
> > OTV extensions into separate drafts or not, the foundational changes to
> > ISIS for each of the technologies will need to be proven working and
> > correct.
> >
> > The draft itself will need to be cleaned up and clear what PDUs, TLVs,
> etc
> > are necessary for any of this technology which will make reading and
> > implementation awareness easier. If we decide to split them (we will
> > decide later - please remain calm  and not discuss this nit now- let's
> get
> > the information completed as we know it); it will be quite trivial. If
> we
> > decide not to; it will be clear to the reader/implementor.
> >
> > The purpose of such a process is because in several decades of the
> > existence of ISIS and extremely wide deployment, no new PDU types were
> > ever deemed necessary. The new TLVs being proposed and the data being
> > carried has never been carried before and may cause new scaling,
> > performance or other impacts that we don't currently understand. We need
> > to fully understand the impact of these changes and learn what we don't
> > know about the changes we are proposing. I've found in my experience
> that
> > new protocols, new technologies and fundamental changes to protocols
> > require a deep understanding and implementation experience and not a
> rush
> > to RFC. Headsup
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > -DWard, CHopps
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Isis-wg mailing list
> > Isis-wg@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
> > _______________________________________________
> > Isis-wg mailing list
> > Isis-wg@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> Isis-wg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
Isis-wg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg