Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions

IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com> Tue, 20 February 2018 04:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ice@cisco.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 F0B87126CB6; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 20:36:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.528
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.528 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, 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_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 pXQo9NQ2Ix8J; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 20:36:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED95A124D37; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 20:36:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=65893; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1519101406; x=1520311006; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=Z/jMG2b4jFMGTIX0oFptnAJoyCSbsuke89omlBFm8U0=; b=ZGeVQZcRrFi9ZNLFgn6HXyA8hW6hQW60aGQuWDMyt6yeJoY5yVALJsMv +pmWSM6WvnZicB9EPIVIDi32WHZrzV5lunEh75Ez4mud29dl6iEbXRnxk 4BnuCXV9PmuChnhTFeXlVTcWQNMe7ko/927eqVBBmChinmdDT8cc0i52R Y=;
X-Files: PastedGraphic-6.png : 43631
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ChDQBPpYta/40NJK1RChkBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEHAQEBAQGCZWqBViicEUIBAQEBAQEGgQ0ngReHf4hugiCFUgcBAkk2hDw?= =?us-ascii?q?CgltYFAECAQEBAQEBAmsohSMBAQEDAQVmDgULCwQKCgUBAQEmAhUBCQUxBhIBB?= =?us-ascii?q?ooEAwgFCLRvhQGCQQ2BMoITAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBDg+FC4IogQ+?= =?us-ascii?q?CMCkMgnmCbIIMBYNugjQFk2iQGDUJhx+JYIULgiCKHIgLixaDOIYDgyECBAsCG?= =?us-ascii?q?QGBPDYigVFNIxUZSwGCGD6CS4IOIDeLFYJMAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,537,1511827200"; d="png'150?scan'150,208,217,150";a="72546689"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Feb 2018 04:36:44 +0000
Received: from [10.24.86.87] ([10.24.86.87]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w1K4aiPB014515 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 20 Feb 2018 04:36:44 GMT
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4A7380C6-A972-45CB-841A-2BE3ED363028"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rdtY2aCimefpdWQxGkEDnafTHv2V+ec4Mn645E40JKWzA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 20:36:43 -0800
Cc: BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org list" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <9C627F55-2616-45CF-9324-5833DC96B5C6@cisco.com>
References: <CAG4d1remdUKutEdc2DU6Gaan3z63CAZVo1D-L0GXg_=eHJxffw@mail.gmail.com> <21151215-CF4E-42BD-8042-BAFDF75F54FB@cisco.com> <CAG4d1rf+ZKG=gpJPfBZx0O1Y4GP+GztL-p9yPhR9jn7uu370hA@mail.gmail.com> <03AF1119-86B0-4FB7-8D65-B378DB10CF48@cisco.com> <CAG4d1rftg0_VVhFPGB3jRfQhUVXj0druXzt4HkgcMNnqjgHpJQ@mail.gmail.com> <A13891D4-2F05-4956-9A77-9F98F0EFDCAE@cisco.com> <CAG4d1rf6-FS=jZB5VD5SMQd7BMdOYY8Erh-xnseKkSGzEwQa5w@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4d1rdtY2aCimefpdWQxGkEDnafTHv2V+ec4Mn645E40JKWzA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/xi_SCRw-zCW1da9FjCsgmnoqxl0>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions
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: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 04:36:48 -0000

Alia,

> I forgot to add - of course - that I understand you have already stated that you don't have any technical objections to the current status.

That is true. Sticking with 8 bits BAR and not yet declare what is means is better than rushing into 16bit with a registry during LC.

Thx,

Ice.

> 
> Regards,
> Alia
> 
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 8:58 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>; wrote:
> Ice,
> 
> At this point in the process, it would be necessary to make an overwhelming technical argument - that would sway almost the whole
> WG to your perspective.
> 
> I see you saying that you have a personal preference for having the IGP Algorithm registry also be used for the BAR registry.   While
> I do, of course, respect where you have technical expertise, my response - particularly from a process perspective - is "that's nice".
> 
> Regards,
> Alia
> 
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 8:15 PM, IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com>; wrote:
> Alia,
> 
> > An architectural argument can't also limit itself to the drafts in the title.
> >
> > If it sounded like the IANA registry was suggested as separate for BIER OSPF  and BIER ISIS, then your attempt to reframe the conversation might be reasonable.  Let me clarify - I see no current reason for an OSPF BAR registry and an ISIS BAR registry; it would just be a BAR registry.  Perhaps
> > that clarification is a good reason to get the IANA registry included in the next update?
> 
> There is no reason for an individual BIER OSPF and BIER ISIS registry. The point is to align with what ever ISIS and OSPF are using to identify the algorithm.
> 
> > The routing layer is separate from the BIER layer.  The BAR is for the BIER layer.
> 
> The underlay is separate from the BIER layer, and each underlay can carry BIER specific information that is needed for for BIER to make the selection.
> 
> Thx,
> 
> Ice.
> 
> 
>