Re: [Teas] [Lsr] [spring] 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

Speaking as WG member: 

Hi Sasha, 

> On Jan 21, 2024, at 01:20, Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@rbbn.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> I have looked up the resource-aware segments draft, and commented on its intended status.
>  
> My guess (FWIW) that if it is changed from “Standards Track” to “Informational”, the chances of its not being progressed – and the associated risks for this draft – would be minimal.

I thought exactly the same thing when first reading the draft and agree with your post to the SPRING list completely, 


Thanks,
Acee


>  
> Regards,
> Sasha
>  
> From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Dongjie (Jimmy)
> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2024 6:05 AM
> To: Chongfeng Xie <chongfeng.xie@foxmail.com <mailto:chongfeng.xie@foxmail.com>>; Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:acee.ietf@gmail.com>>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>; teas <teas@ietf.org <mailto:teas@ietf.org>>; spring <spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Lsr] [spring] 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
>  
> Hi Acee and Chongfeng,
>  
> First of all, as a coauthor I support to progress this document to publication.
>  
> Please see some replies inline:
>  
>  
> 发件人：Chongfeng Xie <chongfeng.xie@foxmail.com <mailto:chongfeng.xie@foxmail.com>>
> 收件人：Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:acee.ietf@gmail.com>>;lsr <lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>;teas <teas@ietf.org <mailto:teas@ietf.org>>;spring <spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
> 时 间：2024-01-20 10:44:46
> 主 题：Re: [Lsr] [spring] 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
>  
> Hi Acee,
> Many thanks for your review and suggestions. I agree with them and will update the draft accordingly.
> Please see some further replies inline [Chongfeng]:
>  
>  
> From: spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2024 2:42 AM
> To: Lsr <lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>; teas@ietf.org <mailto:teas@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
> Subject: [spring] 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
>  
> 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.
> 
> [Chongfeng]: This is OK, we will follow this change in next revision.
> 
> 
>       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.
> 
> [Chongfeng] Understood. Resource-aware segments is a WG document and IMO it has been stable for a while, hopefully it will progress quickly in SPRING.
> 
> [Jie] Yes the resource-aware segments draft is stable and the plan is to move it to WG last call soon.
> 
> 
>       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.
> 
> [Chongfeng] I will leave this to the co-author of the nrp-scalability draft to comment, personally I agree with your reading of that document.
> 
> [Jie] Speaking as coauthor of the NRP scalability draft, the intention of the design principle section is to show that there are possible limitations in control protocols in supporting a large number of NRPs, and some optimization needs to be considered, while discouraging the usage of “any” IGP-based solution is not the purpose.  Also, that text is still open for further refinement. 
> 
> 
> See the attached diff for editorial comments and addressing #1.
> 
> [Chongfeng] Thanks a lot for providing the diff.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> [Chongfeng] Understood. It would be efficient if both documents could move forward in parallel.
> 
> [Jie] Agree, that would be perfect. 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jie
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards
> Chongfeng
> 
>  
> 
> > On Jan 8, 2024, at 5:50 PM, Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com <mailto: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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>
>  
> 
> 
> Disclaimer
> 
> This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.
>