Re: [Lsr] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-06: (with COMMENT)

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rob,

From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 11:51 AM
To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>, Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-06: (with COMMENT)

Hi Acee, Ketan,

One other alternative could be to add an Informative reference to the base OSPF YANG module (that is about to be an RFC), and indicate that the configuration is expected to be an update or augmentation to that base OSPF YANG module?

That would be better.

Is there somewhere for these new config knobs are being tracked - so that they don’t get forgotten?

We have the Datatracker for that…

Thanks,
Acee

Thanks,
Rob



From: Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>
Sent: 04 October 2022 16:13
To: Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
Cc: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-06: (with COMMENT)

Hi Ketan,

From: Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 10:44 AM
To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, The IESG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Christian Hopps <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-06: (with COMMENT)
Resent-From: <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Resent-To: Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Christian Hopps <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Acee Lindem <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 10:44 AM

Hi Acee,

Thanks for your quick response.

My question was : Can we put an informative reference to  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-yang-augmentation-v1/  (of which you are co-author) in the OSPF L2 Bundles draft?

This assumes that an upcoming version of this augmentation-v1 draft will cover the configuration/enablement of this feature.

We also would need to update the Link State Database for the advertisement of the individual links. I think you can just say a future YANG draft as the reference Is not mandatory.

Thanks,
Acee



Thanks.
Ketan


On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 8:07 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Ketan,

See inlie.

From: Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 10:23 AM
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Christian Hopps <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Acee Lindem <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-06: (with COMMENT)

Hi Rob,

Thanks for your review and please check inline below for responses.

The updates as discussed below will be included in the next update.


On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 3:14 PM Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-06: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

I support Lars's discuss.

I don't really object to publishing this document, although I don't really like
the fact that the LAG member information that is being propagated isn't of any
relevance to OSPF routing itself, and OSPF is being used only as a generic
information propagation mechanism.  However, I acknowledge that horse has
probably bolted long ago.

KT> What we are doing here is adding more information for use in the TE-DB that is related to OSPF adjacencies. Originally, Opaque LSAs were introduced in OSPF for carrying additional info for TE-DB - even though that info was not really consumed by OSPF protocol. I can understand that "the line" may be blurred in this respect.


One point that is not clear to me, is the configuration/management of this
feature:  Is the expectation that OSPF implementations that support this RFC
would automatically propagate bundle member information? Or would this be
disabled by default and need to be enabled through configuration?

KT> There should not be automatic enablement. It needs to be enabled via configuration. We will add an Operational Considerations section to clarify this with the following text added:

<NEW>
Implementations MUST NOT enable the advertisement of Layer 2 bundle member links and their attributes in OSPF LSAs by default and MUST provide a configuration option to enable their advertisement on specific links.
</NEW>

 If there is
configuration associated with this feature then would it be part of a updated
version of the standard OSPF YANG model, or is it via YANG module augmentation
to the base OSPF YANG module?

KT> I would expect the enablement to be an augmentation to the base OSPF YANG model.

If this is configurable then having an
informational reference to how/where this OSPF feature can be configured would
likely be helpful.

KT> We do not currently have this covered. I believe this can be added in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-yang-augmentation-v1/ - however, this is not something that has been discussed in the WG or with the authors of this document.

Acee/Yingzhen, if you agree that the OSPF YANG augmentation draft can cover this, then we can add a reference in this document.

The OSPF YANG model (as has been the case with all the protocol YANG models) has been a moving target for years in terms of features, YANG types, and YANG conventions. At this point, it will soon be published as RFC 9129. New features will be included in follow-on drafts including https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-yang-augmentation-v1/ which would be a better reference.

Thanks,
Acee


Thanks,
Ketan


Regards,
Rob