Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Wed, 24 May 2017 09:37 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@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 63763124BE8 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 May 2017 02:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 GhBZlKsmCXe6 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 May 2017 02:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADB31129437 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 May 2017 02:37:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2719; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1495618624; x=1496828224; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zKcTGthTk4P4aahD7kiKaesCVsHpXCkPXA/eYxRrCV8=; b=MBWMzQXkq+kkE0uoWHGLGHH0pDgWq+teIE/w1BZi/i3st94Kelj1rZsr PyCBT5I7ID/BcHxlg+p4q6lGZBnHyRYSG9mPdUccd4t3l0ZUfa8w1HrM2 DnEdzBOObSoufxdq1IvLztNUHHuM7Jv9kMllLwwHOoy6ciPTrumcmNKLF 0=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,385,1491264000"; d="scan'208";a="654900430"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 May 2017 09:37:02 +0000
Received: from [10.147.24.31] ([10.147.24.31]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v4O9b2ua021306; Wed, 24 May 2017 09:37:02 GMT
Message-ID: <5925543D.60800@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 11:37:01 +0200
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
References: <D549C342.AFC83%acee@cisco.com> <3733295c-3e40-d780-ad7b-78d02ff0c50b@orange.com>
In-Reply-To: <3733295c-3e40-d780-ad7b-78d02ff0c50b@orange.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/D_3fJdo8ekXCSrELcbc5BRa0Xpc>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"
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: Wed, 24 May 2017 09:37:07 -0000

Julien,

- I don't know if there is any implementation that uses the solution 
proposed in RFC 4203. I sent a query to the WG list and so far I have 
not heard about a single one.

- there is not even IANA registry created for the Sub-TLVs of the Link 
Local TLVs and there is no IANA value reserved for Link Local Identifier 
TLV as defined in RFC4203.

So at the end we may not even have any duplication at all.

regards,
Peter

On 24/05/17 10:54 , Julien Meuric wrote:
> Hi Acee,
>
> There is indeed overwhelming support on the feature. However, reading
> this brand new -01 (thanks for the advertisement) and the necessary
> backward compatibility section it had to include, I wonder if this I-D
> is specifying a solution to a problem vs. creating new issues...
>
> More generally, we should clarify how much we, as community, are ready
> to duplicate protocol extensions/codepoints on a solely "repurposing"
> basis. If there is a risk of redefining all extensions originally
> specified for the TE use-case, we must right now discuss where to
> globally draw the line between what we may accept and what we will not.
> Otherwise, we will jump onto a controversy each time a new parameter set
> is tackled in a dedicated I-D.
>
> Please note there are some other ways forward in the Routing area. For
> (random) example, PCEP has been repurposed from a its original scope to
> encompass capabilities to push state. To do so, some features and
> objects had to be repurposed, but the specification managed to reuse the
> original ones, avoiding any backward compatibility considerations...
>
> Regards,
>
> Julien
>
>
> May. 23, 2017 - acee@cisco.com:
>> The WG adoption poll has concluded and there is overwhelming  support
>> for this document.
>>
>> Additionally, https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ppsenak-ospf-lls-interface-id-01.txt addresses
>> the comments received the adoption poll.
>>
>> Authors,
>>
>> Please republish the document as draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-00.txt.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>>
>> From: OSPF <ospf-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org>> on
>> behalf of Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
>> Date: Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 2:45 PM
>>
>>
>>      This draft was presented in Chicago and there was acknowledgment
>>      that a solution was needed. The authors have asked for WG adoption
>>      and we are now doing a WG adoption poll. Please indicate your
>>      support or objection by May 20th, 2017.
>>
>>      Thanks,
>>      Acee
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> .
>