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

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Wouldn’t L2 reference would be a bit outdated?
>

There has been work from IEEE and from TRILL in the past as well as other
aspects  (e.g. RFC 6165, RFC 6326,
RFC 6329, RFC 7176) and - particularly with TRILL closing soon - making
sure that such work isn't out of scope
seems useful.

Regards,
Alia

>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> *From: *OSPF <ospf-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "Les Ginsberg
> (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 15:09
> *To: *Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <
> acee@cisco.com>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter
>
>
>
> 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:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Les
> Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2018 2:33 PM
> *To:* Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>; Acee Lindem (acee) <
> acee@cisco.com>; Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>; isis-wg@ietf.org
> *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:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org
> <isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org>] *On Behalf Of *Stewart Bryant
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2018 10:01 AM
> *To:* Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>; isis-wg@ietf.org
> *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 <isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org> <isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org> on
> behalf of Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> <akatlas@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 12:42 PM
> *To: *Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org> <ospf@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org"
> <isis-wg@ietf.org> <isis-wg@ietf.org> <isis-wg@ietf.org>
> *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 <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
> 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
>
> Isis-wg@ietf.org
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>