Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-06.txt

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Also isn't MD5 / TCP-AO or security certificates common across multiple
routing components ?

You have IPX address family and you do not have RIP one which was way more
common over PE-CE then IPX :) ?

I see bunch of labels but quite useful context label as defined in RFC5331
is not really there.

And frankly I think we could just go on and on providing missing examples
from various common to routing areas.

Thanks,
R.




On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I’m a co-author on some of these geo-location drafts but they are not yet
> WG documents. However, we did get a lot of people involved in the
> definitions and feel they are stable. I would not be opposed to adding them
> at the risk they could change after publication.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> From: <[e-mail]> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
> Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 5:18 PM
>
> To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Jeff Haas <[e-mail]>, Routing WG <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-06.txt
>
>
> In addition to already discussed typedefs how about unified GPS
> coordinates which is common across number of working groups for starter ?
>
> Have Routing Design Team considered it ?
>
> Best,
> RR.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> Feel free to suggest validated common YANG typedefs for consideration by
>> the Routing Design Team…. I’m not worried about adding needed types for a
>> few more weeks. It is the few more quarters that I’m worried about. This is
>> also consistent with the direction we are receiving from the ADs.
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>>
>> From: <[e-mail]> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
>> Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 5:06 PM
>> To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Jeff Haas <[e-mail]>, Routing WG <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-06.txt
>>
>> Hi Acee,
>>
>> Progressing it quickly and incomplete will result in each independent
>> routing model coming with their own likely creating pretty massive
>> conflicts and confusion.
>>
>> So IMHO we should really make sure all necessary and common between
>> different protocols elements are defined here even if as result it would
>> get delayed few more weeks.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> R,
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jeff, Robert,
>>>
>>> We weren’t sure that SOO would be used beyond the BGP model. I can add
>>> typedef site-of-origin with format <4-octet-asn:2-octet-number>.
>>>
>>> As far as RFC 5701 is concerned, we could add types ipv6-route-target and
>>> ipv6-site-of-origin with format <ipv6-address:2-octet-number>.
>>>
>>> Note that the intent is to progress this quickly so that usage doesn’t
>>> block other models. It is not to get every present and future common
>>> routing type that might be useful prior to progression.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Acee
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/20/17, 3:43 PM, "rtgwg on behalf of Jeffrey Haas"
>>> <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Robert,
>>> >
>>> >On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 09:25:51PM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>>> >> Let's note that I had similar concerns on RT definition and more
>>> >>expressed
>>> >> to the list in Nov 2016 however they were not considered :(.
>>> >
>>> >I'm in my typical far behind on list mode, so I may have missed this.
>>> :-)
>>> >
>>> >I agree the other structured formats are worth considering.
>>> >
>>> >A challenge the authors of the draft have is canonical formatting for
>>> new
>>> >structured formats while at the same time providing access to the
>>> opaquely
>>> >until they have been thus defined.
>>> >
>>> >I would urge the chairs to request attention from IDR and BESS as part
>>> of
>>> >the WGLC on this document.  Sue Hares responded earlier in the thread,
>>> so
>>> >it
>>> >at least has her attention.
>>> >
>>> >-- Jeff
>>> >
>>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> >> From: Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
>>> >> Date: Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:34 PM
>>> >> Subject: Re: Draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-routing-types
>>> >> To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>
>>> >> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi Acee,
>>> >>
>>> >> SOO has similar format to RT however RT is defined only partially.
>>> >>There is
>>> >> existing extension to RFC4360 in the form of RFC5668 which defines new
>>> >> structure of both RT and SOO (Route Origin).
>>> >>
>>> >> Also I think there important this draft needs to define type for VRF
>>> as
>>> >>VRF
>>> >> as such is used across a lot of different applications way beyond
>>> >>original
>>> >> L3VPN use intention.
>>> >>
>>> >> And I think there is many more common elements ... just think of
>>> recent
>>> >>geo
>>> >> coordinates shred by 4 WGs (if not more ...).
>>> >>
>>> >> Thx,
>>> >> R.
>>> >
>>> >_______________________________________________
>>> >rtgwg mailing list
>>> >[e-mail]
>>> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>>>
>>>
>>
>