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

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Wed, 24 January 2018 17:42 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 C363712711E; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:42:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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] 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 yOKCsYA05jMH; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:42:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot0-x22b.google.com (mail-ot0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22b]) (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 127461270A3; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:42:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id 44so4286972otk.8; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:42:28 -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=D2FIXA68hbNUFWTsbz6WVeabjF7FfVHG5z/cc/vyV40=; b=uxllIY2o4lOQlSQdRJ+H6Yew+QvS7toVCdlXZsfEX1rf/50sUQqQsdlFPAnZq7N4kV /L9pEDZUKyJuROjLb0sQ73MB1T0xZb20r3Cq/zV5TrWMU3qTdhyZW+9KQK4/FQkbmZi/ N4WnUxy2yZktRik4isKS844f0GOevrhw2Odtla29akQTJd7jio2/H4BKPMr22f7QNb5M tV1VN/m3otfMmXKFKUozkp5PpEy2G1HW2trvfx4VG5DzzY0nZawMnFSSQ5o0Ah4mJVUm 7us3WOrZ+lWcswJx75jicEChpPkG2JuBiRwHFLDwI8ZnmIl2LGZhAOhkGj93EHY04f3v 4UDQ==
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=D2FIXA68hbNUFWTsbz6WVeabjF7FfVHG5z/cc/vyV40=; b=TY7niBc7TEiHrBLukvxa+jCk3FmSltcvPzYeM8JdZrWi2yQCL76ejlDP6ct4yZN3GR laWQwanZ1VNZFIlaVlQmX8aSKAlXkVgyKLGs4pHzAMp6tT+wYhVtrWEnnl5Ut+UFVT/3 i61tUCxytGYU9FeTAPVYk3De65vI3ICOA4AxHh/IRTslnP1rJjAgZl6wKka0nAERyEm+ VYrdwBIVe+VnE3SxsAKu1WT3mOGi9dVYSxooxwYgwylN+wz4o0oVJsQzQfVKHUnQmBr3 EhdSmWxzZZVU2oBVtCgZKAdc77eS+j4wbvrujRTWzquN5eoc6I3D0k6zBXV2J/UsQVCt JWUw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxyteONQY+lwwNPTOUVjhM1l9nyTB/8yzYyUIYInB0vKP4iSdg4NDe THLO4SlFsq2uqlniXTInOiJJZ4zTZKmBkzIS8EA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224nNlN/QjSOG/1mhis4lf4N0uDO/vxncakPKjUMjSGj8F5U8h2SpVdl22cCpwVBAmJCUe1gYPZ7yl/Ti5oo5xA=
X-Received: by 10.157.68.230 with SMTP id p38mr9969036otg.6.1516815747014; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:42:27 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.21.103 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:42:26 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <0ae3753a-9037-9199-e61d-b4e15089be73@gmail.com>
References: <CAG4d1rfR5Y85T_wNSVXB0WL4C8THyAkgevr6DyH1xcO=R+sOVQ@mail.gmail.com> <0ae3753a-9037-9199-e61d-b4e15089be73@gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 12:42:26 -0500
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rfB_iBFMi2zvC=HKZ8PeP7U4ncVkXrGDm7cZvuo9EF6Sg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org, OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403043c41b4ca69150563892fc2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/v06KAfQa_XnqQTj90CoMoKhX0Og>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] 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: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:42:31 -0000

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 listIsis-wg@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>
>
>