Hi Les, thank you for your thoughtful consideration and the most helpful suggestion. I'll prepare update accordingly and share with you and the IS-IS community. And, as John expressed, sorry that missed to reach to IS-IS experts in the first place.
Regards, Greg On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:04 PM, John E Drake <[email protected]> wrote: > Les, > > > > Shall we go with a sub-TLV of TLV 22 and promise to never ever to do this > again? > > > > Btw, I am extremely sorry that we didn’t engage with the IS-IS community > and I don’t know why we didn’t. As I said in an earlier email, we worked > pretty extensively with Acee on the OSPF aspects and with Lou Berger on the > RSVP-TE aspects and received a lot of useful feedback from both of them. > > > > Yours Irrespectively, > > > > John > > > > *From:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 4:55 PM > > *To:* John E Drake <[email protected]>; Acee Lindem (acee) < > [email protected]>; Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]>; > Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Robert Sparks <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; Abhay Roy (akr) <[email protected]> > *Subject:* RE: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12 > > > > John - > > > > *From:* John E Drake [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 1:19 PM > *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Acee Lindem (acee); Alexander Vainshtein; > Greg Mirsky > *Cc:* Robert Sparks; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Abhay Roy (akr) > *Subject:* RE: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12 > > > > Les, > > > > I understand and I have made the same argument in other contexts and with > similar results (“… and your point is?”). > > *[Les:] Nice to know I am not completely alone.:-)* > > > > *It would be good if the authors/WG at least considered a non-IGP > approach.* > > *However, if the IGP approach is to be taken, the GENINFO definition > currently in the draft is unacceptable for reasons I have previously given. > So this should be reworked – probably to use a sub-TLV of TLV 22 et al.* > > *The other alternative would be to define a GENINFO application that could > support advertising many interface attributes – I don’t think anyone wants > to go in that direction – certainly not me.* > > > > * Les* > > > > > > However, as I indicated in my previous email, RTM would be used as part of > the network infrastructure as a way to provide time synchronization between > the nodes in the network, so I would consider it similar to the S-BFDs that > Uma and you were discussing. > > > > Yours Irrespectively, > > > > John > > > > *From:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 4:09 PM > *To:* John E Drake <[email protected]>; Acee Lindem (acee) < > [email protected]>; Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]>; > Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Robert Sparks <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; Abhay Roy (akr) <[email protected]> > *Subject:* RE: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12 > > > > John – > > > > The text you have excerpted below was trying to say two things: > > > > 1)If you want to advertise this in the IGPs the OSPF style proposal is > much better from an implementation standpoint than the IS-IS GENAPP proposal > > > > 2)There is a larger question as to whether we should be using the IGPs for > this at all > > > > Statement #1 should not be interpreted to imply that I am advocating using > the IGPs. J > > > > That said, we “ALWAYS” end up choosing using the IGPs to do this sort of > thing – not because it is the “RIGHT” thing to do architecturally – but > because it is so convenient. > > > > I am just asking for folks to pause and think about this a bit more from > an architectural perspective. > > > > Les > > > > > > *From:* John E Drake [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 12:20 PM > *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Acee Lindem (acee); Alexander Vainshtein; > Greg Mirsky > *Cc:* Robert Sparks; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Abhay Roy (akr) > *Subject:* RE: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12 > > > > Les, > > > > Comments inline. > > > > Yours Irrespectively, > > > > John > > > > *From:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 12:25 PM > *To:* John E Drake <[email protected]>; Acee Lindem (acee) < > [email protected]>; Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]>; > Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Robert Sparks <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; Abhay Roy (akr) <[email protected]> > *Subject:* RE: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12 > > > > John – > > > > For me, this raises the age-old question of when it is/is not appropriate > to use IGPs for flooding information. > > > > This is clearly not TE information – you just happen to be using this in > conjunction with MPLS – but it is a generic capability. I do not see the > IGPs as the appropriate mechanism to flood generic interface capabilities. > It also, as Acee has pointed out, results in flooding information to all > nodes in the domain when only a few care about it. > > > > *[JD] RTM support as defined in the draft would be used to provide > extremely accurate time synchronization in an MPLS network so I would > suggest that all nodes in such a network would be using it and hence that > it does belong in the IGP. As an aside, advertising it in the IGP > facilitates incremental or partial deployment. Your yesterday’s email > supports this: * > > > > *“It would seem more appropriate to treat RTM information either as:* > > > > * o an extension to link attribute information already advertised by the > IGPs (as has been suggested for OSPF) - which would suggest in IS-IS a > sub-TLV of TLV 22(et al)* > > > > *or* > > > > · *As an interface attribute independent of routing protocols > which could be retrieved utilizing network management tools”* > > > > Les > > > > *From:* John E Drake [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 8:54 AM > *To:* Acee Lindem (acee); Alexander Vainshtein; Greg Mirsky; Les Ginsberg > (ginsberg) > *Cc:* Robert Sparks; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Abhay Roy (akr) > *Subject:* RE: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12 > > > > Acee, > > > > Relying on an omniscient controller is a non-starter in general and in > particular because the protocol by which it would learn each node’s RTM > capabilities and distribute them to the other nodes is undefined. Further, > one of the ways by which an omniscient controller learns a node’s > capabilities is by snooping the link/state database. > > > > Yours Irrespectively, > > > > John > > > > *From:* Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 11:47 AM > *To:* John E Drake <[email protected]>; Alexander Vainshtein < > [email protected]>; Greg Mirsky <[email protected]>; > Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Robert Sparks <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; Abhay Roy (akr) <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12 > > > > Hi John, > > > > *From: *John E Drake <[email protected]> > *Date: *Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 10:43 AM > *To: *Acee Lindem <[email protected]>, Alexander Vainshtein < > [email protected]>, Greg Mirsky <[email protected]>, > "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]> > *Cc: *Robert Sparks <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "draft-ietf-mpls-residence- > [email protected]" <[email protected]>, " > [email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" < > [email protected]>, "Abhay Roy (akr)" <[email protected]> > *Subject: *RE: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12 > > > > Acee, > > > > We discussed all of this with you over a year ago and used your guidance > in adding the indication of RTM capability to OSPF. > > > > I’m sorry but I focused mainly on the OSPF protocol aspects then and > didn’t question the use case. This question came up in the IS-IS WG > discussions. > > > > Thanks, > > Acee > > > > > > Yours Irrespectively, > > > > John > > > > *From:* Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 11:38 AM > *To:* Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]>; Greg > Mirsky <[email protected]>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) < > [email protected]> > *Cc:* Robert Sparks <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; Abhay Roy (akr) <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12 > > > > I guess what we were trying to envision the use case and whether it makes > sense for all the nodes in the IGP routing domain to have this information. > Would the LSP ingress LSR only need to if the egress LSR supports RTM and > it is best effort recording for transit LSRs in the path? > > > > Additionally, if it is needed in the IGPs, should there also be a BGP-LS > Link Attribute TLV proposed? > > > > Thanks, > > Acee > > > > *From: *Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]> > *Date: *Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 10:15 AM > *To: *Greg Mirsky <[email protected]>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" < > [email protected]> > *Cc: *Acee Lindem <[email protected]>, Robert Sparks <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, " > [email protected]" <draft-ietf-mpls-residence- > [email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]>, "Abhay Roy (akr)" <[email protected]> > *Subject: *RE: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12 > > > > Hi all, > > I concur with Greg: from my POV an interoperable solution should not > depend on an omniscient NMS client distributing information about > capabilities of each node to each other node. > > > > > > Regards, > > Sasha > > > > Office: +972-39266302 <+972%203-926-6302> > > Cell: +972-549266302 <+972%2054-926-6302> > > Email: [email protected] > > > > *From:* Greg Mirsky [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > > *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 6:01 PM > *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]>; Robert Sparks < > [email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Abhay Roy (akr) <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12 > > > > Hi Les, > > I believe that IGP extensions to advertise RTM capability are required. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Greg – > > > > I am having trouble understanding your response. > > The question we are raising is whether we should extend the IGPs to > support advertising RTM capability – an alternative being to retrieve the > capability via network management. > > > > Saying that the IGP functionality is optional and/or wouldn’t always be > advertised doesn’t really answer the question of whether we should or > should not define the IGP extensions. > > > > Could you respond more directly to this point? > > > > Les > > > > > > *From:* Greg Mirsky [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 7:44 AM > *To:* Acee Lindem (acee) > *Cc:* Robert Sparks; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; Les Ginsberg > (ginsberg); [email protected]; Abhay Roy (akr) > > > *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12 > > > > Hi Acee, > > the draft defines optional functionality. If an operator has no use > neither for PTP's Transparent Clock, nor RTM itself as performance metric, > then RTM sub-TLV would not be included and thus it would not be flooded. Of > course, it be right to reflect RTM capability through YANG data model, thus > allowing SDN scenario you've described. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > > Although it is a bit late, we’ve had some discussions amongst the IS-IS > and OSPF chairs and are wondering whether the interface capability belongs > in the IGPs. This will be flooded throughout the entire routing domain – is > it really needed on every node or will it the RTM testing be initiated from > an omniscient NMS client that would know the capabilities of each node or > easily query them using YANG? > > > > Thanks, > > Acee > > > > *From: *mpls <[email protected]> on behalf of Greg Mirsky < > [email protected]> > *Date: *Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 1:25 PM > *To: *Robert Sparks <[email protected]> > *Cc: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" < > [email protected]>, "[email protected]" < > [email protected]>, "[email protected]" < > [email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12 > > > > Hi Robert, > > thank you for the most expedient review and comments. I'll make changes in > Section 2 per your suggestion. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Robert Sparks <[email protected]> > wrote: > > The changes all look good. > > I still think you should say something in the document about what "the > time of packet arrival" and "transmission" means, and call out the point > you made about being careful to not introduce apparent jitter by not making > those measurements consistently. (The definitions you point to in your > earlier mail from G.8013 don't really help - they just say "time of packet > arrival". Again, the first and last bit are likely to be several > nanoseconds apart so I think it matters. Perhaps you're saying it doesn't > matter as long as each node is consistent (there will be error in the > residence time measurement, but it will be constant at each node, so the > sum of errors will be constant, and the clocks will be ok?) > > Please look at the new first paragraph of section 2 - there's a mix of "as > case" and "in case" that should be made consistent. I suspect it would be > easiest to simply say "referred to as using a one-step clock" and "referred > to as using a two-step clock" or similar. > > RjS > > > > On 1/18/17 12:03 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > Sasha Vainshtein came with elegant idea to address disconnection between > discussion of one-step and two-step modes that you've pointed out. We've > moved Section 7 as sub-section into Section 2 now. Attached are updated > diff and the proposed new version -13. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > once again, thank you for your thorough review and the most detailed > comments. I've prepared updated version and would greatly appreciate if you > review the changes and let us know whether your comments been addressed. > Attached are diff and the new version. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 7:48 AM, Robert Sparks <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12 > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review Date: 2017-01-10 > IETF LC End Date: 2017-01-17 > IESG Telechat date: 2017-02-02 > > Summary: Ready (with nits) for publication as a Proposed Standard > > I have two primary comments. I expect both are rooted in the authors > and working group knowing what the document means instead of seeing > what > it says or doesn't say: > > 1) The document is loose with its use of 'packet', and where TTLs > appear when > they are discussed. It might be helpful to rephrase the text that > speaks > of RTM packets in terms of RTM messages that are encoded as G-ACh > messages and > not refer to packets unless you mean the whole encapsulated packet > with MPLS > header, ACH, and G-ACh message. > > 2) Since this new mechanic speaks in terms of fractional nanoseconds, > some > discussion of what trigger-point you intend people to use for taking > the > precise time of a packet's arrival or departure seems warranted. (The > first and > last bit of the whole encapsulated packet above are going to appear at > the > physical layer many nanoseconds apart at OC192 speeds if I've done the > math > right). It may be obvious to the folks discussing this, but it's not > obvious > from the document. If it's _not_ obvious and variation in technique > is > expected, then some discussion about issues that might arise from > different > implementation choices would be welcome. > > The rest of these are editorial nits: > > It would help to pull an overview description of the difference > between > one-step and two-step much earlier in the document. I suggest in the > overview > in section 2. Otherwise, the reader really has to jump forward and > read section > 7 before section 3's 5th bullet makes any sense. > > In section 3, "IANA will be asked" should be made active. Say "This > document > asks IANA to" and point to the IANA consideration section. Apply > similar > treatment to the other places where you talk about future IANA > actions. > > There are several places where there are missing words (typically > articles or > prepositions). You're less likely to end up with misinterpretations > during the > RFC Editor phase if you provide them before the document gets that far > in the > process. The spots I found most disruptive were these (this is not > intended to > be exhaustive): > > Section 3: "set 1 according" -> "set to 1 according" > Section 3: "the Table 19 [IEEE..." -> "Table 19 of [IEEE..." > Section 4.2: "Detailed discussion of ... modes in Section 7." > -> "Detailed discussion of ... modes appears > in Section 7." > Section 10: "most of" -> "most of all" > > In Setion 3.1 at "identity of the source port", please point into the > document > that defines this identity and its representation. I suspect this is a > pointer > into a specific section in IEEE.1588.2008]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
