Re: [Lsr] WG Review: Link State Routing (lsr)

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Fri, 16 February 2018 14:25 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@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 EFF9B12D87C; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 06:25:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 pLRdVtbpKaE6; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 06:25:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x230.google.com (mail-oi0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::230]) (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 6E4091273B1; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 06:25:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x230.google.com with SMTP id y4so2237669oix.2; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 06:25:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jnq+YwsANB54MWWoFVnN/5IellZ/KQv1KGxBIy8DlKc=; b=m4RVOM7HtjHT0oL0sJ+uenFi40U5N5AW3KpxqN8GOAH/jCIQw9Sexuw1wekBdp0ZE0 ZoC26PIQ6f9WpHRunQBNsRdhB4Wf2NrUGOeZsz7PF5mDx4KWhPw0PyhrFZqjKb1BVfyW okgCW96d/cvw6JiaO6ULpRHxMS6BsxbwagM+BaYg6+xpXLk9rE/RLjFfc4dt1rcAO1bk Whx7vUjwgJ8/H5ydgYghfqVf4B/gZLUQSKkYby9SW0Q9AS+YYdYZh3TJKSomhv7pWxSc bHEY1p6AyCArjaBsc9oHH9Qcnx9jKcny137k1w2PCBzYIbLJxYl0eQ9DNgBhIy9GGo6c 93Sw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jnq+YwsANB54MWWoFVnN/5IellZ/KQv1KGxBIy8DlKc=; b=W0p1VjtRfH8Brd5zsne7CMhF36olHv7rNt4qwhmzGE/vHs00m6so+e/8JkNSS0kFuz KtWbWcuI0Xicba8QH7zM0EVrzx3xii/e5Lu1C8fvYW+Rrw5DltdonqsF2kqiwlxEvCDG r27792DYdTj1+0QD557zQoEVGUFVjjOJeu659emrZBvjprvtPRIOQ/XmfMC2m6nYb8yo PXMrX8Cnqz2lRZ8Tl5h1rpiMdbJy5wd9bQJgBccq63TUTTGutOGTwQpreCFsF/VJXeId WJ2r55cVrVos2ypsiG+xUCUIRI8vTnS0ts2aMhwhy2KwjVSNdaBW/WCbpBREcrqaPqu7 R54w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPAUg1VeGsC1UaLfV1PNU2mPBpg/t9WW7zdKj21d2nAn50tsjMqE zFIdp3eNC83L6QELW2t0raGaxmIoxLTik7A7quM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226z/YN9rqTzR29zwn5wxGMKtGEHppNGkPvAC7lzte57io9JUPqNOHWeZjJIqQUaksWron/49zRVSu/ZDU7E0ao=
X-Received: by 10.202.216.136 with SMTP id p130mr4423550oig.277.1518791133455; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 06:25:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.1.44 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 06:25:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <151819647323.1248.8104311081893022670.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <151819647323.1248.8104311081893022670.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 16:25:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ8_L3P3cF-oObThbFzrwKE90JmFhH49V7zx0Y2s8FrgB9Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Cc: lsr@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113d5a72ff69c20565551df0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/FsRq4H4_AqLI6J0CI82_Rbhd3Jc>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Review: Link State Routing (lsr)
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 14:25:40 -0000

The adopted documents for both WGs needs to be sorted in this charter or
referenced. It does not mention the milestones for the adopted documents by
the separated WG, how will the process be, is there merging of documents
also, not mentioned, please clarify the approach,

The reason for merging is not mentioned I think, the proposal lacks such
clear reason or why was not merged before and now is the right time to
merge? IMO it is needed in this charter.

Is the WGs OSPF and ISIS closed after activating this LSR WG? yes it says
merging but not mentioned closing the WGs. IMHO, it is important to
clarifying this issue.

AB

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 7:14 PM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>; wrote:

> A new IETF WG has been proposed in the Routing Area. The IESG has not made
> any determination yet. The following draft charter was submitted, and is
> provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the
> IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org) by 2018-02-19.
>
> Link State Routing (lsr)
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Current status: Proposed WG
>
> Chairs:
>   Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>;
>   Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>;
>
> Assigned Area Director:
>   Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>;
>
> Routing Area Directors:
>   Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>;
>   Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>;
>   Deborah Brungard <db3546@att.com>;
>
> Mailing list:
>   Address: lsr@ietf.org
>   To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>   Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/
>
> Group page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/lsr/
>
> Charter: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lsr/
>
> The Link-State Routing (LSR) Working Group is chartered to document current
> protocol implementation practices and improvements, protocol usage
> scenarios,
> maintenance and extensions of the link-state interior gateway routing
> protocols (IGPs) - specifically IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3.  The LSR Working
> Group is formed by merging the isis and ospf WGs and will take on all their
> existing adopted work at the time of chartering.
>
> IS-IS is an IGP specified and standardized by ISO through ISO 10589:2002
> and
> additional RFC standards with extensions to support IP that has been
> deployed
> in the Internet for decades.  For the IS-IS protocol, LSR-WG’s work is
> focused on IP routing, currently based on the agreement in RFC 3563 with
> ISO/JTC1/SC6. The LSR-WG will interact with other standards bodies that
> have
> responsibility for standardizing IS-IS. LSR-WG will continue to support
> Layer
> 2 routing (for example TRILL work) as needed.
>
> OSPFv2 [RFC 2328 and extensions], is an IGP that has been deployed in the
> Internet for decades. OSPFv3 [RFC5340 and extensions] provides OSPF for
> IPv6
> and IPv4 [RFC5838] which can be delivered over IPv6 or IPv4 [RFC 7949].
>
> The LSR Working Group will generally manage its specific work items by
> milestones agreed with the responsible Area Director.
>
> In addition to ongoing maintenance, the following topics are specific
> work-items for the WG.
>
> 1) Improve OSPF support for IPv6  and create at least parity with IPv4
> functionality
>     by adding OSPFv3 extensions using the OSPFv3 Extended LSAs.
>
> 2) Extensions needed for Segment Routing and associated architectural
> changes
>
> 3) YANG models for IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3 and extensions
>
> 4) Extensions for source-destination routing
>
> 5) Improvements to flooding (and other behaviors) to better support dense
> meshed
>    network topologies, such as are commonly used in data centers.
>
> The Link-State Routing (LSR) Working Group will coordinate with other
> working
> groups, such as RTGWG, SPRING, MPLS, TEAS, PCE, V6OPS, and 6MAN, to
> understand the need for extensions and to confirm that the planned work
> meets
> the needs and is compatible with IS-IS and/or OSPF from functional,
> architectural and performance point of views.  LSR-WG will coordinate with
> CCAMP, TEAS, and BIER on their extensions to the LSR IGPs as applicable to
> LSR protocol operation and scale.  LSR-WG should coordinate with other WGs
> as
> needed.
>
> Milestones:
>
>   Jul 2018 - OSPF YANG Model to IESG
>
>   Jul 2018 - ISIS YANG model to IESG
>
>   Jul 2018 - IS-IS Reverse Metric to IESG
>
>   Jul 2018 - IS-IS Segment Routing MSD to IESG
>
>   Nov 2018 - OSPFv3 SR to IESG
>
>   Nov 2018 - OSPFv2 Attribute Agility
>
>   Mar 2019 - OSPF Segment Routing YANG Model
>
>   Mar 2019 - IS-IS Segment Routing SR YANG Model
>
>   Jul 2019 - OSPFv3 Duall Stack (single instance)
>
>
>