Julien - My position on WG adoption of draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols (opposed) and the reasons why have been stated in an earlier post to the list.
draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols is discussing how to signal whether an application which makes use of link attribute advertisements is enabled on a link. For the purposes of this discussion the application is specifically RSVP. Your post is discussing a quite different thing. Given that RSVP is enabled you are asking/suggesting that we might want to also signal certain specific capabilities of RSVP - which is a qualitatively different thing. I believe that is out of scope for draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols (and draft-ietf-isis-te-app). Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Julien Meuric [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 5:16 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te- > protocols > > Hi Les, > > I am not sure I am following you. > > As per the abstract in draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols, all I am > talking about is "a mechanism to indicate which traffic engineering protocols > are enabled on a link in IS-IS." At this stage, are you questioning the > relevance of the poll to the IS-IS WG? (In case we really had considered > another WG for this I-D, we would certainly have ended up in TEAS, not in > CCAMP nor MPLS). > In case mentioning the node counterpart is confusing, please ignore RFC > 5073. > In case joining Chris B's open discussion about renaming the "TE protocol sub- > TLV" is not obvious, please do not consider that as a prerequisite to adopt > the I-D. > > You suggest RFC 5029 as a candidate solution for draft-hegde-isis-advertising- > te-protocols (section 3). That would save us a sub-TLV codepoint and leave > us 14 bits instead of 32. This looks like a reasonable way forward to me. > > By the way, the suggested value for the sub-TLV in draft-hegde-isis- > advertising-te-protocols is already allocated! > Shraddha/Chris, could you please drop suggested codepoints from the I-D? > > Thanks, > > Julien > > > > Oct. 21, 2017 - [email protected]: > > Julien - > > > > I think the issue you raise first needs to be discussed in CCAMP (or perhaps > MPLS) WG. If there is agreement that this is a problem which needs to be > addressed then a draft can be written. Perhaps this is RFC 5073bis - perhaps > something else. > > > > As far as link level signaling, in IS-IS there is already provision > > for that using link attributes sub-TLV defined in RFC 5029: > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoin > > ts.xhtml#isis-tlv-codepoints-19of22 > > If signaling is required to address the issue you raise that would be the > most appropriate place to do it. > > > > I don't think your issue is in scope for either > > draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te- > protocols or draft-ietf-isis-te-app. > > > > Les > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Isis-wg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Julien > >> Meuric > >> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 7:15 AM > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I support the adoption of draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols > >> as a foundation for a WG item. A per-link "Capability sub-TLV" (the > >> term "protocol" might be too specific here) really adds a missing > >> piece after RFC 5073. > >> > >> Once WG document, we may discuss an additional use case suggested by > >> that RFC: on top of RSVP-TE support, distinguish between 3209-only > >> and 3473-capable. Indeed, there are parameters like SRLGs that were > >> defined as part of GMPLS extensions: an implementation (wildly) > >> guessing RFC > >> 3473 support from that would not be fully wrong. Similarly, an > >> implementation may perfectly support 3473 even if it has not > >> explicitly advertise a PSC switching capability on a given link. Let > >> us make these explicit! > >> > >> My 2 cents, > >> > >> Julien > >> > >> > >> Oct. 07, 2017 - Christian Hopps: > >>> Hi Folks, > >>> > >>> The authors have requested the IS-IS WG adopt > >>> > >>> > >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro > >>> to > >>> cols/ > >>> > >>> as a working group document. Please indicate your support or > >>> no-support for taking on this work. > >>> > >>> Authors: Please indicate your knowledge of any IPR related to this > >>> work to the list as well. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Chris & Hannes. > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Isis-wg mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Isis-wg mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg > > _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
