[Teas] Shepherd's Review of "Applicability of IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Network Resource Partition (NRP)" - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-06

Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 19 January 2024 18:42 UTC

Return-Path: <acee.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00F4EC14F6E2; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 10:42:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANY_SPAN_IN_TEXT=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AckrMdjsxOo2; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 10:42:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf2e.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F599C14F6BC; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 10:42:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf2e.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-67f91d48863so5816846d6.0; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 10:42:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1705689758; x=1706294558; darn=ietf.org; h=message-id:in-reply-to:to:references:date:subject:mime-version:from :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Q1G2FVMMYKXR73Kp8+XCGwCPgbjzrVianRP8dB2qN7k=; b=bWzd7LIfpy5h9V4YsKHN+paG13vk3kPFXX0qs0CiMEqE/Wp/RqBMaCfoaEmX3uNHv8 DgSM8t/dS8YxKSFbJ0iOGuh0I0/UGntKe6hXQxQJ4DbVkXlRPqOWPxJqy4qqZvPTVyqu ZTnFzDeVYK4RzqsTYDAOlK6VYVD9Y0tvGCn6FTdUNqPHYkXqhRhLmVIzP+XiMgGXBXy8 9UsWwYfzXpEpFnnToOLqKg6wDas6nxjBjrH0R9bMD4MoW3hiJOkc1aP4h/cNnovSiYXU CrQElSapZtQpE2LjdpScWpnZ8AERlHT2xTDOCQCMdkxzOk1AXCkostqRpQ7f+nFIiG/q kdEA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1705689758; x=1706294558; h=message-id:in-reply-to:to:references:date:subject:mime-version:from :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Q1G2FVMMYKXR73Kp8+XCGwCPgbjzrVianRP8dB2qN7k=; b=AWh6ZP5up+4kwvo4CK7HdPRJySWGnmeONzTGjOL39yKVccfI6D0jcoM/icuN5jIe33 +/Sd3lGERLJNd95/l2Idd64rAFsJTq0PDxTpJWqtj/ywr0GguKCv1lJk5Yw0p5T1FfT1 bsKsn3LzIg/lRkUeS38j28A4UiCOqEJI/NBO2Qth4cKgtkMzSw3+76JOgEpuYmxp50Zw OjjOjNFXyCZyK8xupSCdapnZgSJ6WnOYXbcUvBpBNP6Y7HSaE0UeXqxIX3F/j+C6WrLj Jhf5p3TFUvBTE/kTAJZxitNJkFyRN4wXeP/7frWNWo2WWqwokm0Z/baALJXVQ6cw9lpn RpvA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzhNsqgkjoozo2HXLHYdiabVXv89FKzEc/g6rnca3mlQbAkHPfg CbXOZmjUzjc5WTlBBY0AYXIFziRhJneoZdcq5rJhEOM+amQ+aBYq1BL+4Azf
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEc00SasExmFswFuDfi5Fw/ckBwDCo54vhXoMyswB9TFwB2vagVXKEYF5u8y/FOALpKc+UtQg==
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:e08a:0:b0:683:bafc:c6f4 with SMTP id l10-20020a0ce08a000000b00683bafcc6f4mr301743qvk.39.1705689757550; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 10:42:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([136.54.28.118]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id lz4-20020a0562145c4400b006837a012417sm736745qvb.51.2024.01.19.10.42.36 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 19 Jan 2024 10:42:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_925A06C0-A060-4297-A731-D1B2386BE8FC"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.700.6\))
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 13:42:25 -0500
References: <C38046FD-E8BD-4309-8CA2-966F9FD50637@gmail.com>
To: Lsr <lsr@ietf.org>, teas@ietf.org, spring@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <C38046FD-E8BD-4309-8CA2-966F9FD50637@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <B71A17B4-09C5-4C2E-B1ED-55FCAEDA3EFF@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.700.6)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/XjlyznNMJpHW7y2bDSJGWP9cUuk>
Subject: [Teas] Shepherd's Review of "Applicability of IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Network Resource Partition (NRP)" - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-06
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 18:42:44 -0000

Speaking as WG Member and Document Shepherd: 


I have reviewed the document and have three comments. 

      1. The document can go forward implying that draft-dong-lsr-sr-enhanced-vpn-10 is the accepted solution for supporting higher scale of NRPs. While the reference is informative, the text implies this. I’d remove the reference altogether  and this is reflected in my comments. 
      2. To support NRPs in IS-IS, three pieces are required - IS-IS SR (MPLS and SRv6), IS-IS Multi-topology, and the SR resource-aware segment. The latter is not being progressed in SPRING yet. If it is not accepted, the draft will be stranded on awaiting publication. I’ve added the SPRING WG to the to list. 
      3. There is design principle phrasing in draft-ietf-teas-nrp-scalability-03 which discourage the usage of “any” IGP-based solution (as Les commented). If you read the entire document, this is not the case and I’d suggest these principles be qualified to match the intent.   Since there are common authors on both documents, I’d hope this could be accomplished. 

See the attached diff for editorial comments and addressing #1. 

Speaking as LSR WG Co-chair: 

Of these comments, #1 is easy to remedy and #3 is on the other TEAS document. IMO, #2 remains the only potential blocker to moving forward with publication. I’d solicit others opinions on this point. While draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments-08 simply defines the semantics for resource-aware segments, it is not certain that it will go forward and it seems to be critical to draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt. 

Thanks,
Acee

 


 

> On Jan 8, 2024, at 5:50 PM, Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> This begins a two week LSR Working Group last call for the “Applicability of IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Network Resource Partition (NRP)”. Please express your support or objection prior to Tuesday, January 23rd, 2024. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee