Re: [Isis-wg] draft-wei-isis-tlv-03 (Purge Originator Id)

["Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>]

Folks -

Any reason why 

draft-ietf-isis-purge-tlv-01

(or at least the 00 version allegedly submitted some time back) is not
posted? We did accept this as a WG doc did we not??

   Les

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Li [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 4:50 PM
> To: Dave Katz; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: [e-mail]; Jie Dong; bruno.decraene@orange-
> ftgroup.co; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] draft-wei-isis-tlv-03 (Purge Originator Id)
> 
> 
> So I have aversion (perhaps irrational ;-) to overloading semantics
> into the length field.  So I've actually added the flag.
> 
> I've also addressed a number of comments, both on list and privately,
> so this is worth a full read.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/23/10 10:57 AM, "Dave Katz" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > This seems to make sense so long as the absence of the neighbor
field
> > unambiguously says that the inserting system is also the originator
> of
> > the purge (otherwise you need a flag.)
> >
> > --Dave
> >
> > On Apr 22, 2010, at 2:39 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> >
> >> One other suggestion.
> >>
> >> The usefulness of the extensions defined in this draft depend upon
> >> the extent to which they are deployed - which no doubt will take
> >> considerable time under the best of circumstances. It seems that we
> >> could enhance the usefulness of the extensions even in the case of
> >> partial deployment by allowing an IS which supports these
extensions
> >> to add the new TLV to purges it receives that do not include the
new
> TLV.
> >> It could include both its own system ID (to identify who added the
> >> TLV) and the system ID of the neighbor from whom the empty purge
was
> >> received. While this is not guaranteed to pinpoint the source of
the
> >> purge, it would at least provide a pointer to the portion of the
> >> network in which the purge originated.
> >>
> >> So the TLV would then look like:
> >>
> >> TLV - code to be assigned by IANA
> >> Length - Either (1 * systemid length) or (2 *system ID length)
Value
> >> - System ID of the system inserting the TLV (Required) System ID of
> >> the system from which the purge was received (Optional)
> >>
> >> ???
> >>
> >>   Les
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
On
> >>> Behalf Of Tony Li
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 11:39 PM
> >>> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); [e-mail]; Jie
Dong;
> >>> [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] draft-wei-isis-tlv-03 (Purge Originator Id)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi Les,
> >>>
> >>>> But hopefully we can comment on 01 anyway?? :-)
> >>>
> >>> Of course!  ;-)
> >>>
> >>>> I don't see the need for Section 3. It was interesting discussion
> >>>> material while we were debating the merits of making this a WG
> >>> document,
> >>>> but I think it has drawbacks when it is included in what is
> >>>> intended
> >>> to
> >>>> become a standards document.
> >>>
> >>> Well, the point was to help document some of the field failures
> that
> >>> we've seen and motivate the changes.
> >>>
> >>>> In the second set of three points, only the first (which
documents
> >>> the
> >>>> lamentable purge on checksum error experience) has value. The
last
> >>> two
> >>>> are anecdotal and could be translated as "there are some weird
> bugs
> >>> out
> >>>> there". Interesting - but unnecessary. The first point could be
> >>>> mentioned in the introduction as part of the justification for
the
> >>>> protocol extensions - but I think even that is unnecessary.
> >>>
> >>> True, but without the background, these changes would seem like
> >>> something straight out of the Oort cloud.
> >>>
> >>> Compromise: condense the text and move to the introduction?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> In Section 5 I would like to see language which says "hostname
TLV
> >>>> SHOULD only be used in addition to the system ID TLV". As every
IS
> >>> MUST
> >>>> have a unique systemID but hostnames are optional I would prefer
> >> that
> >>> if
> >>>> an implementation chooses to include the extra info in the purge
> >> that
> >>>> the system ID ALWAYS be there. (This is unenforceable of course)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Works for me.  Other folks?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I think there needs to be language which makes clear that the
> >> absence
> >>> or
> >>>> presence of this additional information has no impact on the
> >>> acceptance
> >>>> of a purged LSP as valid i.e. no changes to the operation of the
> >>> Update
> >>>> process are introduced by this draft.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Can't hurt.  I'm certain that this will break some conformance
> >>> testers regardless.
> >>>
> >>> Any other comments?
> >>>
> >>> Tony
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Isis-wg mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Isis-wg mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
> >>
> >