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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 24 May 2017 12:14 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 0DDB6129AC4 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 May 2017 05:14:55 -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 BOo5GM2fKumk for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 May 2017 05:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F27912944A for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 May 2017 05:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5826; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1495628093; x=1496837693; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=O6Gb5WtQnTUNcXTvuPEwflmZgoWM1794N+Dl2lU/cx0=; b=RB2SLWAMAYTn0e+CHO+AbyfZdYc4l+f86G0tUzHTUN/waEUNwNwE5TZy fwKHG1qVzpI2/F0rVT/+clzk8G0YB4QJkXq61MPe0Of1S/F8rn75uoGHc 75BybWKazxxu8mrw6G1AtWPw40CmeKqZpKnfnNkU/0d7IbFukw3//bqSc c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DBAAC2eCVZ/4wNJK1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1VigQwHg2iKGJFVlXeCDyELhXgCGoJQPxgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIU?= =?us-ascii?q?YAQEBAQMBASEROhsCAQgUAQMCAiMDAgICJQsUARACBAESFAeKCw6rAH2CJos9A?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARoFgQuHMQGDHIQ0MBcPgmyCYAWeIwGTJ4IGhTy?= =?us-ascii?q?KNZRNAR84gQpxFUaFLIFKdgGIFYENAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,386,1491264000"; d="scan'208";a="427889227"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 24 May 2017 12:14:52 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v4OCEqwR027652 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 May 2017 12:14:52 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; Wed, 24 May 2017 08:14:51 -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; Wed, 24 May 2017 08:14:51 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"
Thread-Index: AQHS09Oqr8w/y5xc7ku3DJRURYKaPqIDcf0AgAAMAICAAAjDAP//4EGA
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 12:14:51 +0000
Message-ID: <D54AEFD2.B057A%acee@cisco.com>
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>
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: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <76FD363F0F21494089C1C140E1BB9078@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/SIVyqIyoK4566_orVpvvIzgVa-8>
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 12:14:55 -0000

Hi Julien, 


On 5/24/17, 6:08 AM, "OSPF on behalf of Julien Meuric"
<ospf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of julien.meuric@orange.com> wrote:

>Hi Peter,
>
>Please be aware that my comment applies beyond the scope of this single
>I-D. 

I’m glad you are not trying to obstruct this simple ID that aligns OSPFv2
with OSPFv3 and IS-IS for interface ID discovery.
>
>Talking about this one, see [JM] below.

The discussions are ongoing with respect to TE reuse and we are taking the
path we agree to in Chicago with respect to application specific
attributes. Backward compatibility will, no doubt, play a significant role
in these discussions.

Thanks,
Acee 

>
>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.
>
>> 
>> 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 mailing list
>OSPF@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf