IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OSPF] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-smirnov-ospf-xaf-te

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 10 June 2016 13:28 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 DF86112D1E3; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 06:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.946
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.946 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=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-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 RO7b6O81UtUr; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 06:28:48 -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 D50D412D53B; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 06:28:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8977; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1465565327; x=1466774927; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=hrKsJp77vayNZQdHS6YtqjAvwoh+WKgv1YTwizhlcqk=; b=kIAXa9Y+/j/ixrFcp8mR6Hjp7JDdmwCepq6Lv/bqwsl6OH+c44FCdHEn lz8KocJsYn//Q1Dk4G8vyFxVBySTwAKAU6eq2rNMIXMhySuYnb7ptEU4I 9cl+O9wucVojg9wYlFH7giIdcZI6tMrrV64KpCG69Ojpru1bUqEGUMLOs E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0A9AgC/v1pX/4kNJK1dgnBOVn0GthyFAIF6IoVxAhyBCjgUAQEBAQEBAWUnhEUBAQEEI1YQAgEIEQMBAigDAgICMBQJCAIEAQ0FiDAOrT+QYAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARyKdIIQglCCYYJaBZhfAYYDiCSBaU6EBIhlj2oBDw82g25uAYkIfwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,449,1459814400"; d="scan'208,217";a="284166235"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 10 Jun 2016 13:28:47 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (xch-rtp-013.cisco.com [64.101.220.153]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u5ADSkSO010592 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:28:46 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:28:45 -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 15.00.1104.009; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:28:45 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Manav Bhatia <manav@ionosnetworks.com>, "<rtg-ads@ietf.org>" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-smirnov-ospf-xaf-te
Thread-Index: AQHRwtR9gwO3cHbrt02M1iaIz2RuJp/islUA
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:28:45 +0000
Message-ID: <D38037C4.64014%acee@cisco.com>
References: <CAGS6MpAvirQ=0ab+S_dVv1UzDv9xCD_0msBA0GXR5tX8cc-4Tg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGS6MpAvirQ=0ab+S_dVv1UzDv9xCD_0msBA0GXR5tX8cc-4Tg@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_D38037C464014aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/dA9wNpgiikzCcMEGaHHLzODCgKk>
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-smirnov-ospf-xaf-te@tools.ietf.org" <draft-smirnov-ospf-xaf-te@tools.ietf.org>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-smirnov-ospf-xaf-te
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:28:50 -0000

Speaking as WG Co-Chair:

The first time we took this draft to poll for adoption, there wasn’t much interest. Due to the utility of being able to only advertise TE in either OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 in dual stack deployments coupled with the simplicity of allowing endpoints of either address family to be advertised in the TLV-based TE LSAs seems like compelling reasons to do standardize this. At the time, I like to again ask for comments either for or against OSPF WG adoption.

Thanks,
Acee

From: rtg-dir <rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Manav Bhatia <manav@ionosnetworks.com<mailto:manav@ionosnetworks.com>>
Date: Friday, June 10, 2016 at 12:56 AM
To: "<rtg-ads@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>>" <rtg-ads@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>>
Cc: Routing Directorate <rtg-dir@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>>, "draft-smirnov-ospf-xaf-te@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-smirnov-ospf-xaf-te@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-smirnov-ospf-xaf-te@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-smirnov-ospf-xaf-te@tools.ietf.org>>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-smirnov-ospf-xaf-te

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-smirnov-ospf-xaf-te
Reviewer: Manav Bhatia
Review Date: 10/06/2016
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary: No issues found. This document is ready for publication.

The draft proposes something that prima facie appears reasonable -- using a single OSPF instance to set up TE LSPs for both v4 and v6.

Comments:

The draft is quite simple and i see no technical issues. However, i would like this to go through the regular IETF WG process before it gets pushed to the publication pipeline.

Cheers, Manav

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email