Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

OK, I know when I am in the rough.

S


On 26/01/2018 03:27, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
>
> +2
>
> we already have a kitchen-sink protocol to do so…
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeff
>
> *From: *OSPF <[e-mail]> on behalf of "Dolganow, Andrew 
> (Nokia - SG/Singapore)" <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 18:02
> *To: *"Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" 
> <[e-mail]>, Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>, Alia 
> Atlas <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *OSPF List <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter
>
> +1 to that
>
> *From: *Isis-wg <[e-mail]> on behalf of "Acee Lindem 
> (acee)" <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Friday, January 26, 2018 at 3:18 AM
> *To: *"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>, Stewart Bryant 
> <[e-mail]>, Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *OSPF List <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter
>
> I agree with Les about being selective about LSR non-routing usage.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
> *From: *"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 1:59 PM
> *To: *Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>, Acee Lindem 
> <[e-mail]>, Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *OSPF WG List <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *RE: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter
>
> Stewart -
>
> *From:*Stewart Bryant [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 25, 2018 4:32 AM
> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>; Acee Lindem (acee) 
> <[e-mail]>; Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* OSPF List <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter
>
> Les
>
> I agree wrt L2
>
> Isn't another focus collecting the information to feed into an SDN 
> controller via BGP-LS? That is really network layer  state collection 
> rather than routing in the traditional sense.
>
> */[Les:] Please do not propose such language. This raises the old 
> discussion about using the IGPs as a transport for “just about 
> anything”./*
>
> */We long ago agreed that TE related information was “routing 
> information” – if for no other reason than it was grandfathered in. 
> But this does not alter the IGP’s focus on routing./*
>
> */I know we “stretch” the definition with things like MSD and S-BFD 
> discriminators, but I see these as carefully considered choices – and 
> ones w modest impact./*
>
> */Institutionalizing the IGPs as an “SDN Distribution Protocol” is not 
> something I want in the charter./*
>
> */Les/*
>
> *//*
>
> - Stewart
>
> On 24/01/2018 23:09, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
>
>     It occurred to me after sending this that perhaps a better
>     statement as regards IS-IS would be:
>
>     “LSR’s work is focused on IP/IPv6 and Layer 2 routing…”
>
>     though admittedly there isn’t much going on as regards Layer2 and
>     IS-IS at the moment.
>
>        Les
>
>     *From:*Isis-wg [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of
>     *Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2018 2:33 PM
>     *To:* Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; Acee Lindem (acee)
>     <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>; Alia Atlas
>     <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Cc:* OSPF List <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Subject:* Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter
>
>     Since a charter only provides a general definition of the work
>     that falls within the purview of the WG it requires some adjunct
>     to keep track of the current priorities.
>
>     That could be the list of milestones (which OSPF has regularly
>     maintained – but IS-IS has not) – or it could simply be the list
>     of active WG documents.
>
>     I just don’t see that we should expect the charter to express
>     “work in progress” now – or in the future.
>
>     Alia – do you think the statement about IS-IS:
>
>     “LSR’s work is focused on IP routing…”
>
>     Could be improved by saying
>
>     “LSR’s work is focused on IP/IPv6 routing…”
>
>     ???
>
>        Les
>
>     *From:*Isis-wg [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of
>     *Stewart Bryant
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2018 10:01 AM
>     *To:* Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>     Alia Atlas <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *Cc:* OSPF List <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Subject:* Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter
>
>     Yes that fixes that.
>
>     How about:
>
>     s/The following topics are expected to be an initial focus:/ In
>     addition to ongoing maintenance, the following topics are expected
>     to be an initial focus:/
>
>     I am just concerned that we need not to loose focus on work in
>     progress.
>
>     - Stewart
>
>     On 24/01/2018 17:54, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>
>         How about:
>
>         LSR will coordinate with CCAMP and BIER on their extensions to
>         the LSR IGPs as
>
>         applicable to LSV protocol operation and scale.
>
>         Thanks,
>
>         Acee
>
>         *From: *Isis-wg <[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>on behalf of Alia Atlas
>         <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         *Date: *Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 12:42 PM
>         *To: *Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         *Cc: *OSPF WG List <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>,
>         "[e-mail]" <mailto:[e-mail]><[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         *Subject: *Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter
>
>         Hi Stewart,
>
>         Thanks for the quick feedback.  Feel free to provide
>         suggestions for text changes if you have them.
>
>         You've certainly written enough charters :-)
>
>         Regards,
>
>         Alia
>
>         On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Stewart Bryant
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>         wrote:
>
>             Alia,
>
>             I think that this merger is long overdue, and hopefully it
>             will help new features to be written in an aligned way.
>
>             I think the remit to perform general maintenance should
>             slightly clarified since the way the charter is written
>             they look like they are at a lower priority than the
>             enumerated list.
>
>             I would have thought that "LSR can coordinate with CCAMP
>             and BIER on their extensions " should have been more
>             directive.
>
>             - Stewart
>
>             On 24/01/2018 17:18, Alia Atlas wrote:
>
>                 Here is the proposed charter for the LSR working group
>
>                 that will be created from the SPF and ISIS working groups.
>
>                 This is scheduled for internal review for the IESG
>                 telechat on February 8.
>
>                 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lsr/
>
>                 The Link-State Routing (LSR) Working Group is
>                 chartered to document current protocol implementation
>                 practices and improvements, protocol usage scenarios,
>                 maintenance and extensions of link-state routing
>                 interior gateway protocols (IGPs) with a focus on
>                 IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3.  The LSR Working Group is
>                 formed by merging the isis and ospf WGs and will take
>                 on all their existing adopted work at the time of
>                 chartering.
>
>                 IS-IS is an IGP specified and standardized by ISO
>                 through ISO 10589:2002 and additional RFC standards
>                 with extensions to support IP that has been deployed
>                 in the Internet for decades.  For the IS-IS protocol,
>                 LSR’s work is focused on IP routing, currently based
>                 on the agreement in RFC 3563 with ISO/JTC1/SC6. The
>                 LSR WG will interact with other standards bodies that
>                 have responsible for standardizing IS-IS.
>
>                 OSPFv2 [RFC 2328 and extensions], is an IGP that has
>                 been deployed in the Internet for decades. OSPFv3
>                 [RFC5340 and extensions] provides OSPF for IPv6 and
>                 IPv4 [RFC5838] which can be delivered over IPv6 or
>                 IPv4 [RFC 7949].
>
>                 The LSR Working Group will generally manage its
>                 specific work items by milestones agreed with the
>                 responsible Area Director.
>
>                 The following topics are expected to be an initial focus:
>
>                 1) Improving OSPF support for IPv6 and extensions
>                 using OSPFv3 LSA Extendibility.
>
>                 2) Extensions needed for Segment Routing and
>                 associated architectural changes
>
>                 3) YANG models for IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3 and
>                 extensions
>
>                 4) Extensions for source-destination routing
>                 [draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing]
>
>                 5) Potentially, extensions to better support specific
>                 network topologies such as
>
>                 ones commonly used in data centers.
>
>                 The Link-State Routing (LSR) Working Group will
>                 coordinate with other working groups, such as RTGWG,
>                 SPRING, MPLS, TEAS, V6OPS, and 6MAN, to understand the
>                 need for extensions and to confirm that the planned
>                 work meets the needs.  LSR can coordinate with CCAMP
>                 and BIER on their extensions to the LSR IGPs as
>                 useful.  LSR may coordinate with other WGs as needed.
>
>                 Regards,
>
>                 Alia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                 _______________________________________________
>
>                 Isis-wg mailing list
>
>                 [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>                 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>
> _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list 
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>