hi les, we have taken turns long-time ago to advertise non-routing related information which is only relevant to controllers (l2bundles comes into mind ;-)).
while it would have been nice to get at least notice that an IS-IS extension is being worked on (i mean prior to IANA asking for expert review :-/ ) i see no reason why we should hold this back. - we can argue perhaps whether it should be part of GENAPP or ROUTERCAP TLVs, but i cannot see the sky falling to advertise a non-routing related capability, that does not change frequently. /hannes On 1/19/17 18:24, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > 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. > > > > Les > > > > *From:*John E Drake [mailto:[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]] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 11:47 AM > *To:* John E Drake <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; > Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>; Greg Mirsky > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; Les Ginsberg > (ginsberg) <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > *Cc:* Robert Sparks <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>; Abhay Roy (akr) <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12 > > > > Hi John, > > > > *From: *John E Drake <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > *Date: *Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 10:43 AM > *To: *Acee Lindem <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, Alexander > Vainshtein <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, Greg Mirsky > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, "Les Ginsberg > (ginsberg)" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > *Cc: *Robert Sparks <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, > "[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>" > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, > "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, "Abhay Roy (akr)" > <[email protected] <mailto:[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]] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 11:38 AM > *To:* Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>; Greg Mirsky > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; Les Ginsberg > (ginsberg) <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > *Cc:* Robert Sparks <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>; Abhay Roy (akr) <[email protected] > <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > *Date: *Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 10:15 AM > *To: *Greg Mirsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > *Cc: *Acee Lindem <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, Robert > Sparks <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, > "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, > "[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>" > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, > "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, "Abhay Roy (akr)" <[email protected] > <mailto:[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 > > Cell: +972-549266302 > > Email: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > > > *From:*Greg Mirsky [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 6:01 PM > *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > *Cc:* Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>; Robert Sparks <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>; Abhay Roy (akr) <[email protected] > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 7:44 AM > *To:* Acee Lindem (acee) > *Cc:* Robert Sparks; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; Les Ginsberg > (ginsberg); [email protected] > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Greg Mirsky > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > *Date: *Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 1:25 PM > *To: *Robert Sparks <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > *Cc: *"[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, > "[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>" > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, > "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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
