From nobody Tue May 18 10:07:59 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2E5C3A19BC; Tue, 18 May 2021 10:07:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.796 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=orange.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 lYwdN-J_776g; Tue, 18 May 2021 10:07:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.66.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 876493A14D1; Tue, 18 May 2021 10:07:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from opfedar00.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.11]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by opfedar24.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTPS id 4Fl2WB40Xbz5x3M; Tue, 18 May 2021 19:07:50 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orange.com; s=ORANGE001; t=1621357670; bh=IlBm32/86uA9k9huMgbaVJdIA9v2uBGay8spNQBBKDU=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=hpqcPa+9G+tkJOzO86weuNJ8fSOHmt02vOkNyObW2cLJYk/OuODR2Y45YFFUIp1cX SN5K8hOYmHNhhiEMm+t6sKb5XrMSYUcFsjgTcpKknkshI4BZDbUJx4FY1B9yIwvkT5 ddBuB1fjG+69u2nI3cC1E+N94QPMkkC4ZRNeNCnWZ5H8DBDZRkHO6j5Qwkl/7U5rhY 7B5woNdDKLflB64SXkJ/1Ub+hpfbflhr4kJGE1qGePFfMPzIUX2FFDnOsGktzPOz1Q /Buol+nHK1dsUsBWkpf3JyFRFGdzhl9d8FzLiogt68C7J5JPZCPxlQsMlGtcuZWtw4 hvSR8qBrslgjg== Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by opfedar00.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTPS id 4Fl2WB2dhtzCql5; Tue, 18 May 2021 19:07:50 +0200 (CEST) From: To: tom petch , "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" , "opsawg@ietf.org" , "adrian@olddog.co.uk" CC: "opsawg-chairs@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] TReferences: was Comments was:Shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common Thread-Index: AQHXS9vmWq8ZUHPkS0K7PwIDCudeo6rpISwwgAAkl4CAACvJsA== Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 17:07:49 +0000 Message-ID: <15568_1621357670_60A3F466_15568_73_5_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93303538A747@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: <0c9001d73065$21bdb570$65392050$@olddog.co.uk> , , <20594_1621259966_60A276BE_20594_468_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933035389C47@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> , <5788_1621340532_60A3B174_5788_256_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93303538A489@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.245] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] TReferences: was Comments was:Shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 17:07:58 -0000 Re-, Please see inline.=20 Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De=A0: tom petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com] > Envoy=E9=A0: mardi 18 mai 2021 18:05 > =C0=A0: BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN ; Joe > Clarke (jclarke) ; opsawg@ietf.org; > adrian@olddog.co.uk > Cc=A0: opsawg-chairs@ietf.org > Objet=A0: Re: [OPSAWG] TReferences: was Comments was:Shepherd writeup > for draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common >=20 ...=20 > > > > rtg-bgp > > RFC4271 > > > > rtg-rip > > RFC2453 > > > > rtg-isis > > ISO-10589 > > >=20 > [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. >=20 > >=20 > But then you leave people with no idea where to go to understand > level-1=20 [Med] I have no problem to add a reference for isis-level identity. I thoug= ht we are discussing features.=20=20 (or how that term should be spelt:-). [Med] There is no convention for the naming. What is really important is th= e description.=20 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 follo= wing... which is clear this is about is-is level:=20 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 L= 3NM.=20=20 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 KeepaliveT= imer or KEEPALIVE message.=20 Again, what matters is the description. We do currently have the following:= =20 "This timer indicates the KEEPALIVE messages' frequency between a PE and a BGP peer..."=20 >=20 > 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.=20 >=20 > Tom Petch ___________________________________________________________________________= ______________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden= tielles 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 el= ectroniques 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 inf= ormation 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 dele= te 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.