Re: [Lsr] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: (with COMMENT)ret, .

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Thu, 21 May 2020 16:55 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EBAE3A09DE; Thu, 21 May 2020 09:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 HOutKeveBgGs; Thu, 21 May 2020 09:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E11C13A08C5; Thu, 21 May 2020 09:55:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2546; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1590080116; x=1591289716; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ACjsqB8hQQPyvgpKbmMC0Aa9ez7bz0t+kJLkIruC/i0=; b=VMn6aVfkw5Hprl9UW7gNyLtA5LFtvzjCCk/WIdwOlekvyW5mptyZsfIE hJ4U2m7gzd2iP3SByqr12OP7F3GlTuepFF7i2OIfEcnxnXVk7H47/qLKs xFQUUjCYn2bZpzmstgZhPC2xGFYpxc0dIitrTSujqhXlqwld67uuAC9Kr M=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,418,1583193600"; d="scan'208";a="26359243"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 21 May 2020 16:55:14 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.51] (ams-ppsenak-nitro2.cisco.com [10.60.140.51]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 04LGtD8N028297; Thu, 21 May 2020 16:55:13 GMT
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc@ietf.org, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com
References: <159000466381.16821.994893511549433009@ietfa.amsl.com> <d98d82da-c2a7-4d77-d2ab-c2e74f5fdb9d@cisco.com> <76BE667F-352A-4830-BF74-1EA9813EFC30@cooperw.in>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <93bc68cd-7721-dae6-2173-513f5c854ec2@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 18:55:13 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <76BE667F-352A-4830-BF74-1EA9813EFC30@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.60.140.51, ams-ppsenak-nitro2.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/1BxFDhdB23RAKjor-4EG2fr0NM8>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: (with COMMENT)ret, .
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 16:55:19 -0000

Alissa,

as Les correctly pointed out privately to me, this updated text is not 
entirely correct. Not advertising the ELC bit can be result of:

a) router not supporting this extension
b) router supporting this extension, but not supporting ELC

So I would rather keep the original text unchanged.

This is not anything new. This ambiguity is common for any new protocol 
extension that signals a boolean type of information.

thanks,
Peter


On 21/05/2020 15:09, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Thanks!
> Alissa
> 
>> On May 21, 2020, at 3:51 AM, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com 
>> <mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Alissa,
>>
>> On 20/05/2020 21:57, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker wrote:
>>> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: No Objection
>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc/
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> I wasn't clear on where the  thread ended up from the Gen-ART review, 
>>> but I'm
>>> nevertheless suggesting some text below to resolve the main sticking 
>>> point.
>>> OLD
>>> If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD 
>>> advertise the
>>> ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF.
>>> NEW
>>> If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD 
>>> advertise the
>>> ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF. The absence 
>>> of these
>>> advertisements implies that advertisement of the ELC is not supported.
>>
>> I added the suggested text, plus I added "OSPF" at the end. So the 
>> text is:
>>
>> "If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD 
>> advertise the ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF. 
>> The absence of these advertisements implies that advertisement of the 
>> ELC is not supported in OSPF."
>>
>> I added similar text to ISIS ELC draft.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Peter
>>
>>> Not sure if that matches the intent though.
>