IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] WG LC

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Mon, 23 June 2008 05:29 UTC

Return-Path: <isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: isis-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-isis-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 423F53A6803; Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: isis-wg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54DE63A6803; Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=2.077]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Bz26+0hXHli; Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39ABD3A67A6; Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,687,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="33706230"
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Jun 2008 22:29:42 -0700
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5N5TgEh025282; Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:29:42 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5N5Tgea023703; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 05:29:42 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-222.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.106]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:29:41 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:30:09 -0700
Message-ID: <AE36820147909644AD2A7CA014B1FB5205E29162@xmb-sjc-222.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <b33c82d0806222216s5581533fjd2eeaaef774eeb5e@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] WG LC
Thread-Index: AcjU8EFCTZfdHyvCTx+aNnSRrh4fkwAAL4fg
References: <D3332310-5C3B-4A7D-A290-ABB2DC3C1C9A@cisco.com> <b33c82d0806222216s5581533fjd2eeaaef774eeb5e@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: "sujay gupta" <sujay.ietf@gmail.com>, "David Ward" <dward@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jun 2008 05:29:41.0732 (UTC) FILETIME=[232C0240:01C8D4F2]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2984; t=1214198982; x=1215062982; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=ginsberg@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Les=20Ginsberg=20(ginsberg)=22=20<ginsberg@cisc o.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[OSPF]=20WG=20LC |Sender:=20; bh=Np59UJj8XHR3zQ8RMsKMQ9IxP0ZgySLLwyxLizFiBHg=; b=GUziwE2IqZ14ELb0U79BeTz1ezXX+2eAukWBagEiIVQ/IMd7rfUf3E2qe/ xXxwSUshed0EiisKugD7avOuYJ5SEfu1OTwVstmNftpJLGVeRJE6Nidk4LPP bYukNELcPT;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=ginsberg@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
Cc: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, ospf@ietf.org, isis-wg@ietf.org, "Stefano Previdi \(sprevidi\)" <sprevidi@cisco.com>, "Mike Shand \(mshand\)" <mshand@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] WG LC
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org

Sujay -

I assume you wanted to copy the WG lists...have added them to the
thread.
Reply inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sujay gupta [mailto:sujay.ietf@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 10:16 PM
> To: David Ward
> Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Mike Shand (mshand); Stefano Previdi
> (sprevidi); Ross Callon
> Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG LC
> 
> 
> HI David,
> 
> A few questions;
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                                         No. of octets
>               +-----------------------+
>               | Flags                 |     1
>               +-----------------------+
> 
>               | Application ID        |     2
>               +-----------------------+
>               | Application           |
>               | IP Address Info       |     0 to 20
>               +-----------------------+
> 
>               | Additional Application|     0 to (252 -
>               |  Specific Information |     len of IP Address info)
>               +-----------------------+
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we need the Application IP address info, field , although you
> specify it could be a zero size element, I believe it is dependent on
the
> Application ID to utilize this space, as a IP address or anything
else.
> One  concern is it is wasting two bits from the flag.
> Could we not better give a note as to the figure is only one possible
> means of using the Gen_TLV. And split the flag into two parts one as
> mandatory and the other subject to interpretation from the Application
ID.
> 
> This approach would address my second concern, if the App-data is
spread
> across TLV's I would prefer to have some sequence number, end of data
bit
> etc. for ease in processing.

The draft clearly indicates that the presence of IPv4/IPv6 address (or
both) is optional. But, if present it should be placed at the position
indicated. Why? Because, as indicated at the end of this section:

"The Application ID in combination with the Application IPv4/IPv6
   Address Information uniquely identifies the GENINFO Application
   Context (GENINFO-CTX)."

As for the use of application specific flag bits, that may be done in
the additional application specific information. The intent is to keep
the standard header free of application specific information.

  Les

> 
> Thanks,
> -Sujay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 7:26 PM, David Ward <dward@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 	All -
> 	       We are starting a 2 week WG (isis) LC on this draft:
> 
>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-genapp-01.txt
> 
> 
> 	I've also bcc'ed the OSPF WG for their comments as well. Please
have
> all comments to the list by 1700 PST 2008.07.03
> 
> 	-DWard, CHopps
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	OSPF mailing list
> 	OSPF@ietf.org
> 	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
Isis-wg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email