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

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Thu, 25 January 2018 00:17 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 EBEA412D850; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 16:17:11 -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 tNk7OHG6quGf; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 16:17:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot0-x231.google.com (mail-ot0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::231]) (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 A91B21200C1; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 16:17:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot0-x231.google.com with SMTP id 53so5234196otj.2; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 16:17:08 -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=bGfLC0W+MWeiiZBJb1sf3fUXaTEBA7bPMhmV+59hPA8=; b=BhYiZptWQ8UxFfwaf3qv4bfAfYuB0RB6o++9AcDPgmnkHoEWPfWGc+alGIFvCMEd6S OwpmjUkRtGwTQMdV/toy/GV0ahEZkqpThScVMfP0XU05jFtj7RJ7PaXyKfdrtF/qQ5dv L2Bjy2Q0/fw/90SnIPwY9cpn91hzw6x1ooEO4rraMZQheS8ai1IWAwc7n7W1ZuMIylHn KGdepYU7eUYpXzi8UYj+sqWHiRU3JkcVMUkca7P6rvzCMBqh5gr/Ayw+Ugpq41GunwPg bKJ6En6Vf5HjKk1tJDwS0/lju6OzgOmS8bfVns8EHCbBiH0YBMfQRTEaJlGVmLE3wfTq OCgw==
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=bGfLC0W+MWeiiZBJb1sf3fUXaTEBA7bPMhmV+59hPA8=; b=M09Bcw8Z/Dk2HKWplA96Bi7uxcArIuYWGaKwHfsTgQli4CzxYP5DftRmCiy3Ky79Lk fk+V14MjI9ptTEEcGPH3mm0Tx+OApdm8tv88OlNJ+W32WjonveqlxXqiukjCpewJKWQi 1hEqhr/G5JsC1ml28SdeZUGd/3olX4R/bxxvJimC02hBVOZGHNignpIzZHH4zZM8466k t9wOnh9EHLgBoQgbJAY/q5+5jkiMZjIVC54smM1T2RiddTsSqFVPAln7BiMj4asMcQVo pfH/CTul7qXzDXYAk7Nags9zZacWvVD3tQ3tVDUhM3IgA2+y3UVuPEzdvlSjifa6QuFi 6tsQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytefxSwtRG2tHHGiChsBSOmMW0IXocuYKc+aEBOMsEGElWJE3y7y 8XJ5K1iovaCXTuxRlNMJOk44pm1IERdvbXQqr4M=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226ii9D8+f+xeZOElCND28WK/1/IYjk5s4HvPZz/zeOBWhdvoJveSLBBDjee2eYd9iA0thDcvzBYkcRSARU/0ak=
X-Received: by 10.157.17.98 with SMTP id p31mr3731389otp.362.1516839427706; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 16:17:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.21.103 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 16:17:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <618FCAC2-6247-4743-9F01-20645FE964D1@gmail.com>
References: <618FCAC2-6247-4743-9F01-20645FE964D1@gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:17:07 -0500
Message-ID: <CAG4d1re==FFktpSsZjE0ns5axvr9hBG70Du+kNTSHVxYm-oOUA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, 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="001a113e15d64513e305638eb3f1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/sP3CrHsfg0u9hnP5vTy41U2ikzQ>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] 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 00:17:12 -0000

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Wouldn’t L2 reference would be a bit outdated?
>

There has been work from IEEE and from TRILL in the past as well as other
aspects  (e.g. RFC 6165, RFC 6326,
RFC 6329, RFC 7176) and - particularly with TRILL closing soon - making
sure that such work isn't out of scope
seems useful.

Regards,
Alia


>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> *From: *OSPF <ospf-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "Les Ginsberg
> (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 15:09
> *To: *Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>om>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <
> acee@cisco.com>gt;, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>rg>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter
>
>
>
> 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>om>; Acee Lindem (acee) <
> acee@cisco.com>gt;; Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>rg>; 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>om>; Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>rg>; 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>rg>, "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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>