Re: [Lsr] Reorganizing OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs registry [was: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-04]

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

From: John Scudder <[e-mail]>
Sent: 12 September 2022 13:47

Hi Tom,

Needless (?) to say, I’m sympathetic with your position, and thanks for bringing up the parallel case. I take it however, that you aren’t taking the position that this reorganization/restructuring/call it what you will needs to be done by draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles, though? Right now it looks to me as though there’s not consensus that it *should* be done in draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles, which suggests to me that,

- We should ask Ketan to revert to the version where the registry is left untouched (the “nothing” option),
- We should then send draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles for IETF LC and proceed with the publication process, and concurrently,
- Someone who sees value in reorganizing the registry should write a standalone draft to do that, and propose it as a WG draft.

Any objection to that approach?

<tp>

That sounds like a good plan,

Tom Petch

Thanks,

—John

> On Sep 12, 2022, at 5:33 AM, tom petch <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> From: Lsr <[e-mail]> on behalf of John Scudder <jgs=[e-mail]>
> Sent: 06 September 2022 22:04
>
>> On Sep 6, 2022, at 5:00 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>   I guess if we do decide to either abandon the reorganization suggestion altogether, or to pursue it as a separate draft, then draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles should just stick to its existing approach of listing restrictions in their own subsections of the main spec, do you agree? Recall that we got here (in part) because it seemed strange to me to update the registry to list some restrictions, but not all of them.
>>
>> [ACEE] This would be my choice except I wouldn't add the "L2 Member Bundle Attributes" restriction to the IANA registry unless we do it for all the Sub-TLVs as you suggest.
>
> We agree; that was what I meant. All or nothing, either do the whole reorganization (or whatever you want to call it) or back out the 05 change to the IANA section and just roll with what was in 04 and earlier. Halfway doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
>
> <tp>
> All; you have to do it sometime, better sooner than later.
>
> I see a close parallel with MPLS which got itself into a tangle, attempts to clarify were rebuffed until eventually the problems were just too great and the work was done.
>
> Look at the TLVs registry in the IANA Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Group.  I think that you need a strong reason not to adopt a similar approach (if only for users who use MPLS as well as OSPF).  No need for ten columns, just a structured approach.
>
> It took a lot of detailed review to get it right - Loa knows that well - but I believe that the effort was worth it.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> —John