Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"
Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Wed, 24 May 2017 11:28 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 150E4129553 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 May 2017 04:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 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, 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 ykZ_tLx-YvXP for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 May 2017 04:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06B7812955D for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 May 2017 04:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3761; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1495625301; x=1496834901; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9IkwxEWkIfe15kD3ZaaIEIUOEh0LlqnQ032jsGoL5V0=; b=bpZRUykT7llkhEtE2yxhMtetjVSFj5ZvQVhM5bnhN82P8lVUQaZSLekD hvw8LIRdwmjHRJchVXeDx7ymkwUMQeVPG/fi/fMSeudb6V87CQSjbOU7r yJ9f7OOESyFnUh8k063++y+Gm/Hgp9Cb05gyODYdEOUlAD0QebQ6Agoxr U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CyAADpbSVZ/xbLJq1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBhDeBDINvihhzkGKVd4IPIQuFeAKDKRgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUYAQEBAQMBASEVNgoRCxQBAwICBRYIAwICCQMCAQIBFR8RBgEMBgIBARAHigsOqxh9ghQSiz0BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEbBYELhVSBXoMchDSDQoJgAQSeI5MoggaFPINJhmyUTh84gQovIAgaFUaFLIFMPjYBiSIBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,385,1491264000"; d="scan'208";a="652060984"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 May 2017 11:28:16 +0000
Received: from [10.147.24.31] ([10.147.24.31]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v4OBSFeJ011240; Wed, 24 May 2017 11:28:16 GMT
Message-ID: <59256E4F.7070109@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 13:28:15 +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>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
References: <D549C342.AFC83%acee@cisco.com> <3733295c-3e40-d780-ad7b-78d02ff0c50b@orange.com> <5925543D.60800@cisco.com> <5d6cca41-3342-6fc1-1873-e60fa448c132@orange.com>
In-Reply-To: <5d6cca41-3342-6fc1-1873-e60fa448c132@orange.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/PTlmx07OOpsTNtqjNHC2SnD5Z8M>
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 11:28:23 -0000
Julien, On 24/05/17 12:08 , Julien Meuric wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Please be aware that my comment applies beyond the scope of this single I-D. > > Talking about this one, see [JM] below. > > Thanks, > > Julien > > > May. 24, 2017 - ppsenak@cisco.com: >> 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. > > [JM] I have seen, but we cannot use an unanswered 2-week poll on the > OSPF list as if it were an RFC deprecating section 3 of RFC 4203. > > >> >> - 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. > > [JM] You are right: there may be a hole in IANA's registry, probably > missed during publication process. But the RFC is clear: "The only TLV > defined here is the Link Local Identifier TLV, with Type 1". Only the > request for registry creation was missed, which could be very easily fixed. my point is that if people were implementing this, they would figure the missing IANA allocations. regards, Peter > >> >> 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 >>> . >>> >> > . >
- [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions … Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Yingzhen Qu
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Huaimo Chen
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Dirk Goethals
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Ketan Talaulikar Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… prz
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Uma Chunduri
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Padmadevi Pillay Esnault
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Russ White
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… prz
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Anton Smirnov
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… prz
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… prz
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… prz
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… prz
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… prz
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… prz
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Julien Meuric
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Julien Meuric
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Olivier Dugeon
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Olivier Dugeon
- Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensi… Peter Psenak