Re: [OSPF] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-05

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Mon, 19 June 2017 01:12 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 70F301200C5; Sun, 18 Jun 2017 18:12:59 -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 WI6fj7B4-VJw; Sun, 18 Jun 2017 18:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9127C126B6D; Sun, 18 Jun 2017 18:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=26097; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1497834776; x=1499044376; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=C1nIZSS8MBokMQj/c6TWHqn1sBMbMec4SMq1fJ30EJY=; b=XZmoGIBUMLoib3wqB0YfvcGE8T5cd2AVo9yPW82HTdRRIuM0vGhZAiNG 5Rit2n3xrJuXLdte+2u7WESiSv2xeA1RBVHio/L5dzVnFQLAoXnk3KpQz i49CVqO0zZ92tyrvzL1N4uoDj/NL3ctxoULkIoeiu4B/sQIvk+eBVUc2i I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DFAAB2JEdZ/5JdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgm88LWKBDQeDZIoZkXeIK41MghEhAQqFeAIaglA/GAECAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAWsohRgBAQEBAwEBIUsLEAIBCBEBAgECKAMCAgIfBgsUAwYIAgQOBYlITAMVE?= =?us-ascii?q?K1ggiaHKg2EJQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARgFiEIBgyKCV4FjEgEzCQa?= =?us-ascii?q?CbIJhBZ4jOwKHLodIhGeSDYtYiTABHzh/C3QVSYRUgjt2AYcwgSOBDQEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,358,1493683200"; d="scan'208,217";a="259454913"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Jun 2017 01:12:55 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-012.cisco.com (xch-rtp-012.cisco.com [64.101.220.152]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5J1Csqh016495 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 19 Jun 2017 01:12:55 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-012.cisco.com (64.101.220.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Sun, 18 Jun 2017 21:12:54 -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; Sun, 18 Jun 2017 21:12:54 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
CC: "gjshep@gmail.com" <gjshep@gmail.com>, "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>, "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-05
Thread-Index: AQHS5VYLGSOlKtAx/Euz6n9XKUfvmKIq+fOAgABNYICAACBWgA==
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 01:12:54 +0000
Message-ID: <D56C9B31.B5583%acee@cisco.com>
References: <CABFReBq7EzS=ujGKj4FyLitji04ptpH5txbWq3C+UzHRvrOVig@mail.gmail.com> <D56C3FCB.B553A%acee@cisco.com> <CA+wi2hNOqNR0txsjaCvpbSdvJExhu8rSUEYnKeAKSO1Nja7oYg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+wi2hNOqNR0txsjaCvpbSdvJExhu8rSUEYnKeAKSO1Nja7oYg@mail.gmail.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_D56C9B31B5583aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/B7VBXmpJk3n-mdcOsjnBcU3rS-4>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-05
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: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 01:12:59 -0000

Hi Tony,

I’m not saying they that BSL 256 and 512 bit strings would share any labels. What I’m saying is that the OSPF encoding (didn’t look at IS-IS) doesn’t allow them to share the same label range yet the example in the MPLS encapsulation draft implies that they are interleaved by SD in the same label range. Here is the second example:


      L1:   corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 0.

      L2:   corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 1.

      L3:   corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 2.

      L4:   corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 3.

      L5:   corresponding to SD 0, BSL 512, SI 0.

      L6:   corresponding to SD 0, BSL 512, SI 1.

      L7:   corresponding to SD 1, BSL 256, SI 0.

      L8:   corresponding to SD 1, BSL 256, SI 1.

      L9:   corresponding to SD 1, BSL 256, SI 2.

      L10:  corresponding to SD 1, BSL 256, SI 3.

      L11:  corresponding to SD 1, BSL 512, SI 0.

      L12:  corresponding to SD 1, BSL 512, SI 1.

Note that they are ordered by SD – not BSL. However, that the OSPF encoding is BSL specific. So, a label range would only include the SD/SI labels for a single BSL.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              Type             |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Lbl Range Size |                Label Range Base               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | BS Length |                    Reserved                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

I think the example should be updated to match the protocol encoding.

Thanks,
Acee

From: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com<mailto:tonysietf@gmail.com>>
Date: Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 3:17 PM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
Cc: "gjshep@gmail.com<mailto:gjshep@gmail.com>" <gjshep@gmail.com<mailto:gjshep@gmail.com>>, "bier@ietf.org<mailto:bier@ietf.org>" <bier@ietf.org<mailto:bier@ietf.org>>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-05

Acee, can you refer to more specific section in  https://www.ietf.org/id/<https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-07.txt>draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-07.txt<https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-07.txt><https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-07.txt> ? I don't think that it is assumed that BSL 256 and 512 in the same subdomain would ever share labels ...  I sent the conceptual model on the AD review for -architecture that all drafts follow (as far I understood/helped writing them) ...

--- tony

On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hi Greg, Authors,

I support publication. Also, I have two comments.

   1. It is somewhat strange to make protocol drafts standards track while the architecture and encapsulations are experimental.
   2. The OSPF encoding will not support the second example in https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-07.txt. In this example, the BSL 256 and 512 are intermixed. While with the encoding, they would need to be two separate ranges of labels.

I also have some editorial comments but I’ll just pass them to the authors.

Thanks,
Acee

From: BIER <bier-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com<mailto:gjshep@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "gjshep@gmail.com<mailto:gjshep@gmail.com>" <gjshep@gmail.com<mailto:gjshep@gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 5:34 PM
To: "bier@ietf.org<mailto:bier@ietf.org>" <bier@ietf.org<mailto:bier@ietf.org>>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>
Subject: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-05

BIER, OSPF

At BIER WG meeting, IETF97 in Chicago, we decided to move forward to WGLC for some of our docs. We learned that even once published the IESG has a process to change the track of the RFC if the WG makes the case to move the work from Informational to Standards track. The feedback from operators is that RFC status was more important than track, and we won't be able to meet our charter requirements to change track without deployment experience and operator support.

This email starts a two week timer for feedback on the draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions/

WGLC to run in parallel in both BIER and OSPF WGs due to the scope of the work.

Thanks,
Greg
(BIER Chairs)



_______________________________________________
BIER mailing list
BIER@ietf.org<mailto:BIER@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier




--
We’ve heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know that is not true.
—Robert Wilensky