Re: [OPSAWG] TReferences: was Comments was:Shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common

[[e-mail]]

Re-,

Please see inline. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : tom petch [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Envoyé : mardi 18 mai 2021 18:05
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN <[e-mail]>; Joe
> Clarke (jclarke) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Cc : [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] TReferences: was Comments was:Shepherd writeup
> for draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common
> 
... 
> >
> > rtg-bgp
> > RFC4271
> >
> > rtg-rip
> > RFC2453
> >
> > rtg-isis
> > ISO-10589
> >
> 
> [Med] The reason why we don't list those is that, unlike OSPF cited
> RFCs, these ones do not include VPN CE/PE specifics. There some I-Ds
> out there, but these are expired and can't list them. See for
> example, draft-sheng-isis-bgp-mpls-vpn.
> 
> <tp>
> 
> But then you leave people with no idea where to go to understand
> level-1 

[Med] I have no problem to add a reference for isis-level identity. I thought we are discussing features.  

(or how that term should be spelt:-).

[Med] There is no convention for the naming. What is really important is the description. 


  I-D such as l3sm-l3nm
> are configuring all these routing protocols and most of that has
> nothing to do with VPN.  A user wanting to understand level-12 will
> struggle, even if they do know that it is usually spelt level-1-2;

[Med] I'm afraid that we are over-exaggerating here. The L3NM has the following... which is clear this is about is-is level: 

                      leaf level {
                        type identityref {
                          base vpn-common:isis-level;
                        }
                        description
                          "Can be level1, level2, or level1-2.";
                      }

As shown in the diff I already shared with you, level1/levl2/level1-2 were changed to level-1/levl-2/level-1-2. That change will be reflected in the L3NM.  

FWIW, draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg has the following:

     typedef level {
       type enumeration {
         enum "level-1" {
           description
             "This enum indicates L1-only capability.";
         }
         enum "level-2" {
           description
             "This enum indicates L2-only capability.";
         }
         enum "level-all" {
           description
             "This enum indicates capability for both levels.";
         }
       }
       default "level-all";
       description
         "This type defines IS-IS level of an object.";

     }

> likewise they will not find keep-alive since BGP spells it
> keepalive:-(

[Med] Really?! There is no such a thing in RFC4271, but there is KeepaliveTimer or KEEPALIVE message. 

Again, what matters is the description. We do currently have the following: 

 "This timer indicates the KEEPALIVE
  messages'  frequency between a PE
  and a BGP peer..." 

> 
> The references may not be as good as RFC4577 for OSPF v2 but they
> help a user along, and may solve all their problems if the are
> comfortable with the VPN but it is the routing protocol itself they
> are struggling with.

[Med] Understood. Will see how to make things better. Thanks. 

> 
> Tom Petch

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.