Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-acee-lsr-ospf-transport-instance-02.txt

Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 25 February 2021 04:38 UTC

Return-Path: <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.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 1B9503A1186 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 20:38:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 60zavoT8B0XS for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 20:37:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x633.google.com (mail-pl1-x633.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::633]) (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 053543A117B for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 20:37:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x633.google.com with SMTP id f8so2513014plg.5 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 20:37:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=gh5xFy3xwhJslN1x+xiZaDIhupSbkcGcyCjKiFf8CwA=; b=Zgxx1uVa4d+8D5Q9CElPCfWErAlMeNYlrI0y6sjNUjalnvv8vZNnp33vis1bqIbk22 x8qNfjiSfNdsOeRyyZnxUPgWUGlgVsGlf69scV+cKA+CEQ9dqVqSB+SNHaz5aaz5AwIc /uLRunk93d3bOLN0FhdEQksWsKDrcYBv6HhFfaGtRHBKEBZtHkJngLbZzTyDTYMLTlA8 +Yb9wakkF0hAAHqsjYgIgKpr4BoKIjPu9eZjicFUT7B2MNka+3VX6cHveB1IjCgPaOty kT00dxmJBbRwQqOGV5L+oLyKEU4Ztjg/dzYHwZADVBlaPLfE+0AW1Tn4FMymRtbMXOBE BX+A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=gh5xFy3xwhJslN1x+xiZaDIhupSbkcGcyCjKiFf8CwA=; b=BD1r+K7hZDA3q1HIo6ioo9W9OeG0CNfrptYEF6h97svf7/lq2vy5WFbGQK7xA9OZ0e trEnBlAtC8z2yKRsSljwLitT+RCTYfk1pfAu59ii0G6H+0VGr+cnVWuF/ixLcXTZ6lPU 0BPjEknmRQJLUuR4Q9B2zSd8XmB6g1gLrCN0bEHJpTs139pLfI2CZ3TkDz+dw/fZucq1 QeueCovRrWz9KUpqVTzVvSU/qixhool15s39O2IGtyavfldIvDPHX6EP6T9vuKDjHbie unfP9uqLZUwjbY48AeqWH9lQNigQhzUJV2T5NtQEjYkwrC6Je1oQ1X0KAd0LqgDsxfHz vG+Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533oBFto2KGdSPlr6n+WJUCHHWcFUV7zqyd29lDVbJSLEl+kRD5O NADy/ai8B1lGG+3Xpuj5pQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy4uaoYYhLr+SC10sYLFEN10ug2mzKHr9r8WuTHfQhBIUcsHQGPp6zyZoX3ZE0HbE3rZG+FLA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:cd06:: with SMTP id d6mr1399770pju.138.1614227877434; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 20:37:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:646:9702:c61:c8b:7326:845a:e5f9? ([2601:646:9702:c61:c8b:7326:845a:e5f9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z4sm4151779pgv.73.2021.02.24.20.37.56 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 24 Feb 2021 20:37:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <D946099B-4424-4AF7-9B93-4ADA5C6C5EFC@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_95323E53-94CD-4B83-8CE7-303291D58D71"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.40.0.2.32\))
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 20:37:54 -0800
In-Reply-To: <BY5PR11MB4337628B9EDB3BB6E0BF19D5C19F9@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, Abhay Roy <abhay@arrcus.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Sina Mirtorabi <smirtora@cisco.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
References: <BY5PR13MB304895877023CB87A4F360B9E1819@BY5PR13MB3048.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <D45D0B8B-7671-432C-8FFC-4652B08712ED@gmail.com> <BY5PR11MB4337628B9EDB3BB6E0BF19D5C19F9@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.40.0.2.32)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/Dx3fbPsP7SlcW7pzfG8nQnhd_5k>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-acee-lsr-ospf-transport-instance-02.txt
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, 25 Feb 2021 04:38:00 -0000

Hi Les,

Thank you for the review and comments. Please see my answers inline.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

> On Feb 23, 2021, at 11:15 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Yingzhen –
>  
> Thanx for incorporating my suggestion to use the Application Identifiers Registry created in RFC 6823 ( https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml#app-ids-251 <https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml#app-ids-251> ) to allow sharing of application IDs between IS-IS and OSPF.
> I think, however, that we may well want to revise the format of this registry – which is currently very IS-IS centric. Things we may want to consider requesting from IANA:
>  
> Specifying whether the ID can be used by OSPF, IS-IS, or both.
> Moving the registry from the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry to Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters (https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml <https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml> )
>  
> Happy to work with you folks on this.
>  
> Some editorial nits in Section 3.3

[Yingzhen]: Happy to work with you on the registry. 
>  
> “In some cases, it is desirable to limit the number of BGP-LS
>    [RFC5572] sessions with a controller to the a one or two routers in
>  
> s/to the a/to
>  
>    an OSPF domain.  However, many times those router(s) do not have full
>    visibility to the complete topology of all the areas.  To solve this
>    problem without extended the BGP-LS domain, the OSPF LSAs for non-
>  
> s/extended/extending
>  
>    local area could be flooded over the OSPF transport instance topology
>    using remote neighbors Section 4.7.1.”
>  
[Yingzhen]: Thank you for catching these, will fix these nits in the next version.

>  

>    Les
>  
> From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Yingzhen Qu
> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 12:31 PM
> To: lsr@ietf.org
> Cc: Abhay Roy <abhay@arrcus.com>om>; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>om>; Sina Mirtorabi <smirtora@cisco.com>
> Subject: [Lsr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-acee-lsr-ospf-transport-instance-02.txt
>  
> Hi,
>  
> We submitted a new version of this draft with detailed OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 encodings. Please review and send your comments.
>  
> Thanks,
> Yingzhen
> 
> 
>  
> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org> <internet-drafts@ietf.org <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>>
> Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2021 11:21 AM
> To: Abhay Roy <abhay@arrcus.com <mailto:abhay@arrcus.com>>; Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com>>; Sina Mirtorabi <smirtora@cisco.com <mailto:smirtora@cisco.com>>; Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com <mailto:yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com>>
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-acee-lsr-ospf-transport-instance-02.txt
>  
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-acee-lsr-ospf-transport-instance-02.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Yingzhen Qu and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> 
> Name:           draft-acee-lsr-ospf-transport-instance
> Revision:       02
> Title:          OSPF Transport Instance Extensions
> Document date:  2021-02-19
> Group:          Individual Submission
> Pages:          14
> URL:           https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-acee-lsr-ospf-transport-instance-02.txt <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-acee-lsr-ospf-transport-instance-02.txt> 
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-lsr-ospf-transport-instance/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-lsr-ospf-transport-instance/> 
> Htmlized:      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-acee-lsr-ospf-transport-instance <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-acee-lsr-ospf-transport-instance> 
> Diff:          https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-acee-lsr-ospf-transport-instance-02 <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-acee-lsr-ospf-transport-instance-02> 
> 
> Abstract:
>    OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 include a reliable flooding mechanism to
>    disseminate routing topology and Traffic Engineering (TE) information
>    within a routing domain.  Given the effectiveness of these
>    mechanisms, it is convenient to envision using the same mechanism for
>    dissemination of other types of information within the domain.
>    However, burdening OSPF with this additional information will impact
>    intra-domain routing convergence and possibly jeopardize the
>    stability of the OSPF routing domain.  This document presents
>    mechanism to relegate this ancillary information to a separate OSPF
>    instance and minimize the impact.
> 
>                                                                                   
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org <http://tools.ietf.org/>.
> 
> The IETF Secretariat