Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <> Thu, 25 January 2018 20:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C69312DB72; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:44:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.519
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.519 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id urLm2qop3GI5; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:44:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14817128959; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:44:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=53154; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1516913050; x=1518122650; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=skHvI4nFDughECoGOmMkiVW3uIenI9CYvTw2Q/8WHqk=; b=YCqAmGmkXjclZNtDLa21+5FrBsXyjjmv4TKhslQ6jYLhVKKHFA9q+qB3 rbDUwj2VW6cMO/D5AOyGzZSK0j+MPorAmLrJQRZOShu8b2ZSswFjgn+Ob U9VwC87Iw1Bc7iztwwDFpGdaUiEd/PsMYstdvwcW6DmkkNarM2q94Aa9T c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,413,1511827200"; d="scan'208,217";a="347678460"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Jan 2018 20:44:08 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w0PKi8mn028907 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 25 Jan 2018 20:44:08 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:44:07 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:44:07 -0600
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <>
To: Stewart Bryant <>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>, Alia Atlas <>
CC: OSPF List <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 20:44:07 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_30d4c3e58e6a44f4900a2cb344195e67XCHALN001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 20:44:14 -0000

Stewart –

Supporting BGP-LS is a feature implementation issue – not a protocol issue i.e., we do not define extensions to the IGPs specifically so that BGP-LS can be supported.
If your focus is only on how IGP advertisements get mapped into BGP-LS advertisements we can end this thread and simply say that your choice of words was confusing.

But as you are suggesting there is something that needs to go into the charter about this, there is a clear implication that you think there is IGP protocol extension work here. If so, I am raising a red flag and saying I don’t want such a statement in the charter.


From: Stewart Bryant []
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 11:25 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <>om>; Acee Lindem (acee) <>om>; Alia Atlas <>
Cc: OSPF List <>rg>;
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter

On 25/01/2018 18:59, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
Stewart -

From: Stewart Bryant []
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 4:32 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <><>; Acee Lindem (acee) <><>; Alia Atlas <><>
Cc: OSPF List <><>;<>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter


I agree wrt L2

Isn't another focus collecting the information to feed into an SDN controller via BGP-LS? That is really network layer  state collection rather than routing in the traditional sense.

[Les:] Please do not propose such language. This raises the old discussion about using the IGPs as a transport for “just about anything”.

We long ago agreed that TE related information was “routing information” – if for no other reason than it was grandfathered in. But this does not alter the IGP’s focus on routing.

I know we “stretch” the definition with things like MSD and S-BFD discriminators, but I see these as carefully considered choices – and ones w modest impact.

Institutionalizing the IGPs as an “SDN Distribution Protocol” is not something I want in the charter.


Hi Les,

I don't see it quite like that.

I don't think we flood a lot of the SDN specific information do we? We just use the LSP data structures as a convenient encoding, and supplement the information we flood with additional information.

If we were flooding it I would share your concern, but I don't see the reuse of the syntax which is what BGP-LS does as quite such a problem.

Am I missing something here?

- Stewart

- Stewart

On 24/01/2018 23:09, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) 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.


From: Isis-wg [] On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 2:33 PM
To: Stewart Bryant <><>; Acee Lindem (acee) <><>; Alia Atlas <><>
Cc: OSPF List <><>;<>
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…”



From: Isis-wg [] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 10:01 AM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) <<>>; Alia Atlas <<>>
Cc: OSPF List <<>>;<>
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.


From: Isis-wg <><> on behalf of Alia Atlas <><>
Date: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 12:42 PM
To: Stewart Bryant <><>
Cc: OSPF WG List <><>, ""<> <><>
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 :-)


On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Stewart Bryant <<>> wrote:

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.

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.



Isis-wg mailing list<>