Re: [Lsr] Flex Algo merge work, IS-IS and OSPF FAD sub-TLVs

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Mon, 21 May 2018 15:54 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
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 142CE127775 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 May 2018 08:54:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 SiLHuPAouYxg for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 May 2018 08:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9455F127AD4 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 May 2018 08:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stubbs.lan (47-50-69-38.static.klmz.mi.charter.com [47.50.69.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 04AC460B2F; Mon, 21 May 2018 15:54:00 +0000 (UTC)
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
Message-Id: <5AAB5659-975D-4E75-9BDE-D3A05DBF1C2F@chopps.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A4BEC131-FC33-467B-B3AE-73B74FB66A39"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\))
Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 11:53:59 -0400
In-Reply-To: <73789432-BD35-4E42-96BB-7D48D4E10E93@cisco.com>
Cc: "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
References: <612C3B15-9DD2-48C0-A5E5-B999D07AD1D7@cisco.com> <8c0d3e38bfe04b1a973f3cb4285840e8@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <F02D7E3F-15D4-4C8C-89DE-D6F69AA71323@chopps.org> <7686e04b209b4520b5a2f25e96da310d@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <3E609B6F-7AAB-442A-85E4-BBE2BBD4AA70@chopps.org> <5B01766A.2090901@cisco.com> <73789432-BD35-4E42-96BB-7D48D4E10E93@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/vsPKVDXcqeUo8R0bwbd1SfzCElU>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flex Algo merge work, IS-IS and OSPF FAD sub-TLVs
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: Mon, 21 May 2018 15:54:04 -0000

We aren't talking generically about TLV space here. When I raised the question I certainly intended it to be limited to times, as is the case here, where we are literally duplicating registries b/c they both refer to the same thing. I didn't realize that we'd already done this with SR IGP Algorithm registry.

I did also include talking about what (if anything) to do with the duplicated containing TLV, but it seems no one wants to go there, which is fine, and I happen to agree probably is going too far.

Thanks,
Chris.

> On May 21, 2018, at 11:11 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Peter, Chris,
> 
> In this particular case, it may be ok as long as we just limit the code point space to the 1 octet type (i.e., 0-255 with reserved values). However, for all the reasons Peter and Les have already articulated, there will be cases where the TLV or Sub-TLV registries cannot be common. So, I have to ask myself just what are we gaining by here? The encodings are not going to be identical (for all the previously mentioned reasons) and this leaves the door open for time wasted on revisiting this issue...
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee
> 
> On 5/20/18, 9:21 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>    Chris,
> 
>    On 20/05/18 01:47 , Christian Hopps wrote:
>> How about an option 2c
>> 
>>   2c: Leave the encodings the way they are, and use a common registry to define the type/value semantics.
> 
>    having a combined registry that defines FAD Sub-TLVs types is fine with me.
> 
>    thanks,
>    Peter
> 
> 
>