Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter

[Julien Meuric <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

I agree with Stewart: it would be clearer to make explicit that all the
protocol work we have been referring to as "Traffic
Engineering"/"extended metrics"/"topological parameters"/etc. is still
in scope of the LSR WG.

By the way, I think is would be great to also mention the PCE WG when we
tackle the list of expected coordinations, somewhere near MPLS and TEAS...

Thanks,

Julien


Jan. 25, 2018 - [e-mail]:
>
> Les
>
> I agree wrt L2
>
> Isn't another focus collecting the information to feed into an SDN
> controller via BGP-LS? That is really network layer  state collection
> rather than routing in the traditional sense.
>
> - Stewart
>
>
> On 24/01/2018 23:09, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
>>
>> It occurred to me after sending this that perhaps a better statement
>> as regards IS-IS would be:
>>
>>  
>>
>> “LSR’s work is focused on IP/IPv6 and Layer 2 routing…”
>>
>>  
>>
>> though admittedly there isn’t much going on as regards Layer2 and
>> IS-IS at the moment.
>>
>>  
>>
>>    Les
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> *From:*Isis-wg [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Les
>> Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2018 2:33 PM
>>
>>  
>>
>> Since a charter only provides a general definition of the work that
>> falls within the purview of the WG it requires some adjunct to keep
>> track of the current priorities.
>>
>> That could be the list of milestones (which OSPF has regularly
>> maintained – but IS-IS has not) – or it could simply be the list of
>> active WG documents.
>>
>> I just don’t see that we should expect the charter to express “work
>> in progress” now – or in the future.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Alia – do you think the statement about IS-IS:
>>
>>  
>>
>> “LSR’s work is focused on IP routing…”
>>
>>  
>>
>> Could be improved by saying
>>
>>  
>>
>> “LSR’s work is focused on IP/IPv6 routing…”
>>
>>  
>>
>> ???
>>
>>  
>>
>>    Les
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> *From:*Isis-wg [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of
>> *Stewart Bryant
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2018 10:01 AM
>>
>> Yes that fixes that.
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> s/The following topics are expected to be an initial focus:/ In
>> addition to ongoing maintenance, the following topics are expected to
>> be an initial focus:/
>>
>> I am just concerned that we need not to loose focus on work in progress.
>>
>> - Stewart
>>
>>  
>>
>> On 24/01/2018 17:54, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>>
>>     How about:
>>
>>      
>>
>>     LSR will coordinate with CCAMP and BIER on their extensions to
>>     the LSR IGPs as
>>
>>     applicable to LSV protocol operation and scale. 
>>
>>      
>>
>>     Thanks,
>>
>>     Acee
>>
>>      
>>
>>     *From: *Isis-wg
>>     <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>on
>>     behalf of Alia Atlas <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     *Date: *Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 12:42 PM
>>
>>      
>>
>>     Hi Stewart,
>>
>>      
>>
>>     Thanks for the quick feedback.  Feel free to provide suggestions
>>     for text changes if you have them.
>>
>>     You've certainly written enough charters :-)
>>
>>      
>>
>>     Regards,
>>
>>     Alia
>>
>>      
>>
>>     On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Stewart Bryant
>>     <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>         Alia,
>>
>>         I think that this merger is long overdue, and hopefully it
>>         will help new features to be written in an aligned way.
>>
>>         I think the remit to perform general maintenance should
>>         slightly clarified since the way the charter is written they
>>         look like they are at a lower priority than the enumerated list.
>>
>>         I would have thought that "LSR can coordinate with CCAMP and
>>         BIER on their extensions " should have been more directive.
>>
>>         - Stewart
>>
>>          
>>
>>         On 24/01/2018 17:18, Alia Atlas wrote:
>>
>>             Here is the proposed charter for the LSR working group
>>
>>             that will be created from the SPF and ISIS working groups.
>>
>>              
>>
>>             This is scheduled for internal review for the IESG
>>             telechat on February 8.
>>
>>              
>>
>>             https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lsr/
>>
>>              
>>
>>             The Link-State Routing (LSR) Working Group is chartered
>>             to document current protocol implementation practices and
>>             improvements, protocol usage scenarios, maintenance and
>>             extensions of link-state routing interior gateway
>>             protocols (IGPs) with a focus on IS-IS, OSPFv2, and
>>             OSPFv3.  The LSR Working Group is formed by merging the
>>             isis and ospf WGs and will take on all their existing
>>             adopted work at the time of chartering.
>>
>>              
>>
>>             IS-IS is an IGP specified and standardized by ISO through
>>             ISO 10589:2002 and additional RFC standards with
>>             extensions to support IP that has been deployed in the
>>             Internet for decades.  For the IS-IS protocol, LSR’s work
>>             is focused on IP routing, currently based on the
>>             agreement in RFC 3563 with ISO/JTC1/SC6. The LSR WG will
>>             interact with other standards bodies that have
>>             responsible for standardizing IS-IS.
>>
>>              
>>
>>             OSPFv2 [RFC 2328 and extensions], is an IGP that has been
>>             deployed in the Internet for decades. OSPFv3 [RFC5340 and
>>             extensions] provides OSPF for IPv6 and IPv4 [RFC5838]
>>             which can be delivered over IPv6 or IPv4 [RFC 7949].
>>
>>              
>>
>>             The LSR Working Group will generally manage its specific
>>             work items by milestones agreed with the responsible Area
>>             Director.
>>
>>              
>>
>>             The following topics are expected to be an initial focus:
>>
>>              
>>
>>             1) Improving OSPF support for IPv6 and extensions using
>>             OSPFv3 LSA Extendibility.
>>
>>             2) Extensions needed for Segment Routing and associated
>>             architectural changes
>>
>>             3) YANG models for IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3 and extensions
>>
>>             4) Extensions for source-destination routing
>>             [draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing]
>>
>>             5) Potentially, extensions to better support specific
>>             network topologies such as 
>>
>>             ones commonly used in data centers.
>>
>>              
>>
>>             The Link-State Routing (LSR) Working Group will
>>             coordinate with other working groups, such as RTGWG,
>>             SPRING, MPLS, TEAS, V6OPS, and 6MAN, to understand the
>>             need for extensions and to confirm that the planned work
>>             meets the needs.  LSR can coordinate with CCAMP and BIER
>>             on their extensions to the LSR IGPs as useful.  LSR may
>>             coordinate with other WGs as needed.
>>
>>              
>>
>>             Regards,
>>
>>             Alia
>>
>>
>>
>>             _______________________________________________
>>
>>             Isis-wg mailing list
>>
>>             [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>
>>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>>
>>          
>>
>>      
>>
>>  
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf