Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc8919bis-02

["Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>]

Huaimo -

While I thank you for your support of WG adoption, your description of the purpose of the bis draft is not consistent with the goals defined in the draft nor with the actual changes from RFC 8919.

Please see https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc8919bis-02.html#section-9 for a description of the changes made.

Based on WG discussion, the consensus was that RFC 8919 was not as clear as it should be regarding the use of zero-length SABM/UDABM. Text has been added to clarify (NOT change) the normative behavior.
Some additional comments received during draft discussion were also addressed. These clarified (NOT changed) the normative behavior in the presence of legacy applications.

The suggestions you make below regarding Sections 4.2.1 - 4.2.3 are definitely not in scope and - to the best of my understanding based on your short description - are not compatible with existing RFC 8919 behavior.

While I am happy to listen to comments, please remember the intent of this revision is clarification - NOT change.

Thanx.

   Les


From: Lsr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Huaimo Chen
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 12:35 PM
To: Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc8919bis-02

Hi Everyone,

    I support its adoption and have following comments.

    The main purpose of the draft is to get rid of the ambiguity regarding whether a link is enabled with a specific application such as RSVP-TE. A link with attributes for SR-policy is assumed to be enabled with RSVP-TE even though the link is not enabled with RSVP-TE. This is from section 1 "Introduction" of the draft. Thus, the application identifier bit mask defined to identify the application(s) in section 4 "Advertising Application-Specific Link Attributes" seems enough. The link attributes for different applications may be distributed in the existing ways.

   In section 4.2.1, 4.2.2 and 4.2.3, a couple of options for indicating an attribute for all applications are discussed. This seems not needed. A link attribute is distributed in the network. Even though it has no indication for all applications, any application (all applications) can use it if the application wants to.

Best Regards,
Huaimo
________________________________
From: Lsr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Christian Hopps <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 6:17 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [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]>>
Subject: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc8919bis-02


Hi Folks,

This begins a 2 week WG Adoption Call for the following draft:

  https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc8919bis%2F&amp;data=05%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Ce9f1f32aaaea4c1e970b08da7927b3c3%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637955508705139942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=i%2BaKZOToiuDivZzKxWll4TaHrRNAQ4Znz5sDY9Go5M4%3D&amp;reserved=0

Please indicate your support or objections by August 22nd, 2022.

Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any IPR that applies to these drafts.

Thanks,
Chris.