Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 09 June 2017 14:45 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5C5A129B51; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 JtWFLwchlCWp; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:45:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D3E4129B73; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:45:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6017; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1497019555; x=1498229155; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=fTD/r2M8EdMwELFrTqo0K/b69XuyuH7JSqrpeJeJoG8=; b=NKHGOlSNTHG1Q/+agCHEmsJN+LnSwUK5JjMqN0g5/ue6N94lvo0cy7fQ wqB7KZREmn91Z/58YyxjDn6PT2yUDuf95aw2kLCZhbTFW6sWvSd9TxgrY 3LJmb9TnYq+cvZBDSo7SEl+xvyej1fRb6bI+bQiIAPYt/tKI67FU12nzH A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AAAgBQtDpZ/5NdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgnBpgW8Hg22cBJBKhTmCEYYkHIJnQRYBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUYAQM?= =?us-ascii?q?DI1YSAQgEDQMBAiQEAwIEMBQJCgQBDQWJR2SwY4Imi2sBAQEBAQEBAQIBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEfiECDIYUKBoJsgmEFnjwCkz+CBoVDhSeFFpRpASUBMYEKdBVIhUGBTXa?= =?us-ascii?q?IMoENAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,317,1493683200"; d="scan'208,217";a="438130266"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Jun 2017 14:45:54 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v59Ejs5k016552 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:45:54 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:45:53 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:45:53 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE
Thread-Index: AQHS4S8Y37adDddm1EW7MKj9+rQk+Q==
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:45:53 +0000
Message-ID: <D5602C7F.B268A%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D5602C7FB268Aaceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/6_UKdrXgVMdPFzSau0fF1_BnwEI>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 14:45:58 -0000

Corrected IS-IS WG alias – Please reply to this one.
Thanks,
Acee

From: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
Date: Friday, June 9, 2017 at 10:42 AM
To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>, "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>" <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>, "isis@ietf.org<mailto:isis@ietf.org>" <isis@ietf.org<mailto:isis@ietf.org>>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>>
Subject: OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS)

Hi OSPF, ISIS, and SPRING WGs,

As part of the Alia’s AD review, she uncovered the fact that the ERO extensions in 6.1 and 6.2 are specified as far as encoding but are not specified as far as usage in any IGP or SPRING document. As document shepherd,  my proposal is that they simply be removed since they were incorporated as part of a draft merge and it appears that no one has implemented them (other than parsing). We could also deprecate types (4-8) in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA Sub-TLV registry to delay usage of these code points for some time (or indefinitely ;^).

Thanks,
Acee