Re: [Lsr] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: (with COMMENT)

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

On May 6, 2020 at 1:12:42 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:


Barry:

Hi!


> — Section 4 —
>
> The ERLD is advertised in a Node MSD sub-TLV [RFC8476] using the
> ERLD-MSD type defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc].
>
> Just checking: is the IS-IS draft the right reference here in this OSPF
> document?

Yes, it is.  The new ERLD-MSD type is defined there for all routing protocols.


> There does seem to be so much common text between that document and this one
> that I really don’t understand why these (the IS-IS and OSPF signaling) were
> not put into one document, and this reference really drives that home.

One of the objectives of merging the (old) isis and ospf WGs into the
lsr WG (this happened a couple of years ago) was to have common
discussions about two IETF protocols that are similar: both are link
state protocols, for example.

However, they are different protocols and deployments use one or the
other -- sometimes with religious-like fervor.

We have discussed the prospect of having a single document specifying
both OSPF and ISIS behavior, plus any corresponding BGP-LS extensions.
Among other things, that could reduce the document load...  However,
the consensus in the WG is that the result of that would be potential
confusion when it comes time to talk about the features supported or
required in a specific network.  For example, it is much clearer if an
RFP requests support for rfcxxx than if it has to be specific about
rfcxxx/Section y (where the desired protocol extension is specified),
while not requiring Section z (for the other protocol).

As a result we ended up with two documents.  As a tradeoff, I've
insisted in as much common language as possible and to process the two
documents the same time when possible.


Thanks!

Alvaro.