IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-10

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Fri, 20 March 2020 14:37 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.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 2FB703A0A46; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 07:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 7RchcSF7yyKW; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 07:37:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 246E03A0F8A; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 07:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=796; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1584714902; x=1585924502; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vLmUOKEorKCSmPu+42TmeMnBDJt+/VVthUasuWu2oNs=; b=UfW2fcF8svYS0JiZsaN7ip5QGFahi+jJjBkfwkZCsJInMgaTkyEqok36 GrQLqWIrH7GqCON9tLYY6lPxlwfOOQld05N5PXScMrYW1fHU2KR4aU/lQ kyKNor2uIdNOr1g6EGlryuB+M1hwg1jDfTsIbEs3KpyUpMKkQ/Gbif+iy A=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.72,284,1580774400"; d="scan'208";a="22287491"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 20 Mar 2020 14:34:59 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.51] (ams-ppsenak-nitro2.cisco.com [10.60.140.51]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 02KEYwFq011924; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:34:58 GMT
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc@ietf.org>
Cc: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "lsr-chairs@ietf.org" <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <CAMMESsyMkZgpU69GyL8TpwPS7EoO2rxTHWREOwEz7pNRFtNEJw@mail.gmail.com> <6bd667d8-6957-894e-f11e-aa727065190c@cisco.com> <CAMMESsxwbv3aUvg_gR+Ssny=YkW3D2_6tVgDpJx9BGH_Mrdh=A@mail.gmail.com> <0d9b6c73-d309-d2ee-15e0-722df9c32629@cisco.com> <CAMMESsxy7KyCMdAFX2iRHYy78qvQ4eoXLxCRmNj1PGNdOO=QDg@mail.gmail.com> <ff3ae6d5-3bfe-d3c9-ff63-725da0d09e62@cisco.com> <CAMMESszNuZ505G_4o-z-A9ts9SR5tV+9xxDORzUPbSQiPdMcag@mail.gmail.com> <d9972943-7de7-c25d-6e2c-5a4eee77756a@cisco.com> <53F0A553-4075-40A1-A262-47E7EB72E887@cisco.com> <CAMMESswZz7REaNFQhRbPxu8eO89fhM4gD-9B4huHUcByBnQsQA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <7f4535c1-3d1d-4c27-77f2-30150b4e9f42@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 15:34:58 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESswZz7REaNFQhRbPxu8eO89fhM4gD-9B4huHUcByBnQsQA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.60.140.51, ams-ppsenak-nitro2.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/mkKs10to76TZ3rYKiM58Fb4IYM8>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-10
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 20 Mar 2020 14:37:21 -0000

Hi Alvaro,

On 20/03/2020 15:30, Alvaro Retana wrote:
>   On March 20, 2020 at 10:27:55 AM, Acee Lindem wrote:
> 
> …
>>> I don't really see why one would affect the other.
>>
>> I agree. BMI-MSD is an egress capability and ERLD-MSD is an ingress
>> capability. While they may be related in the internal ASIC implementation,
>> they are independent from a capability perspective.
> 
> Please write that then.

there are many MSDs defined already, are we going to write that the new 
MSD type is not interacting with any other MSD each time we define a new 
one?

For me it's implicit, if the text does not say anything, there is no 
interaction.

thanks,
Peter

> 
> They don’t have to affect each other, if they don’t then that’s great!
> 
> Alvaro.
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email