Re: [Isis-wg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-discriminator-02: (with COMMENT)
"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Wed, 18 November 2015 19:27 UTC
Return-Path: <ginsberg@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D4B91A888A; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:27:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.086
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.086 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 WP-yrbIVGS1G; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:27:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 665481A8861; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:27:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2767; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1447874840; x=1449084440; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=LxDD3tG2p7gNrwH+TuyXea/ZIp3Jw1oEpTDbR39ByKk=; b=GXuWrfPZMFo83esdZ74Pam+CHBPv4zvt/sbYWKzu5LWfIUv0zPqf9C4i LsFEdRElJoWV9p+7tEaf7NMhjdR8OJRyzoaUD4lLOhMco1cFbgcMWIbI4 uSVHhdoOI0kWaTaOLUpbLfKR9H8gKVLA1laH0m5DypLoh59+qLjK1BH8o o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AnAgCe0ExW/40NJK1egztTbwa8Q4IaAQ2BZSGFbgKBUDgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhDQBAQEEOj8MBAIBCBEEAQEBHgULIREdCAIEAQ0FCIgRAxINun0NhFoBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEUBIZUhH6CU4ZmBZZKAYs1gW6UeYdSAR8BAUKCRIFAcgGEBIEHAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,314,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="50917951"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 18 Nov 2015 19:27:16 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com (xch-aln-010.cisco.com [173.36.7.20]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tAIJRGo0002751 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 18 Nov 2015 19:27:16 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com (173.36.7.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 13:27:16 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 13:27:16 -0600
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bclaise@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-discriminator-02: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRIiFB3oT0ZHOz/0u8s9y2YKt7mZ6iDd4wgAAX14D///90oA==
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 19:27:15 +0000
Message-ID: <55009caae40c46288b235e2b1f7d9691@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
References: <D27211B2.EAB16%aretana@cisco.com> <c415d52120ee46748af281297f64d4fd@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <D27225AB.EABAC%aretana@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D27225AB.EABAC%aretana@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.121.24]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/qDdQDBJTAqjOlJ5yrpSDadDcr54>
Cc: "draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-discriminator@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-discriminator@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, "chopps@chopps.org" <chopps@chopps.org>, "isis-chairs@ietf.org" <isis-chairs@ietf.org>, "menachemdodge1@gmail.com" <menachemdodge1@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-discriminator-02: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 18 Nov 2015 19:27:22 -0000
Alvaro - I think you are referring to this text from https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-05.txt Section 3 "...Allocated S-BFD discriminators may be advertised by applications (e.g., OSPF/IS-IS)." This is (in my view) poorly worded bordering on inaccurate. In the context of the IS-IS/OSPF drafts we are defining a way to advertise the S-BFD Discriminator(s) assigned to a given node. This does not imply any usage of these values by the IGPs. It is conceivable that the IGPs could find a use for an S-BFD session and in that context the IGPs would be an S-BFD client and considered an "S-BFD application". But that is NOT what is covered in the current IGP drafts - nor is it within scope. So I reiterate, the current discussion regarding how applications decide which S-BFD discriminator should be used is out of scope for the existing IGP drafts. The entire discussion belongs in the BFD WG. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Alvaro Retana (aretana) > Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 10:12 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Benoit Claise (bclaise); The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-discriminator@ietf.org; chopps@chopps.org; > menachemdodge1@gmail.com; isis-chairs@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-sbfd- > discriminator-02: (with COMMENT) > > On 11/18/15, 12:47 PM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> > wrote: > > Les: > > >Neither IS-IS nor OSPF are the "application" here. We are simply the > >transport for an opaque piece of information. It makes no sense to me > >to ask the IGPs to clarify what is an issue between S-BFD and an application. > > What you say makes sense. > > It also makes sense to me that one could argue that since we're transporting > opaque information we could also include an extra piece of opaque > information to let someone else know what the first piece was for. > Note that I'm offering that scenario just as an example of the fact that there > are at least a couple of potential interpretations. > > Because of the language used in the Base S-BFD draft (where it does call > OSPF/IS-IS an "application", [1]), I just want to play it safe and make sure > we're not pointing at each other and that result won't be that no one does > the mapping. > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. > > > [1] > > session. Allocated S-BFD discriminators may be advertised by > applications (e.g., OSPF/IS-IS). Required result is that > applications, on other network nodes, possess the knowledge of the > mapping from remote entities to S-BFD discriminators. The reflector >
- [Isis-wg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-i… Benoit Claise
- Re: [Isis-wg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on dra… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on dra… Alvaro Retana (aretana)
- Re: [Isis-wg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on dra… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on dra… Alvaro Retana (aretana)
- Re: [Isis-wg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on dra… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on dra… Alvaro Retana (aretana)