Xiaohu - Work on a revision to the MSD draft to make the names and text consistent with the goal that multiple types of "MSD" will be advertised using the same sub-TLV is in progress. Once authors have agreed on the changes you will see a new revision.
Can I assume that once this is done you are open to changing the mpls-elc drafts to use the more generic encoding for advertising RLD? I think this is important to make judicious use of sub-TLV code points. As written, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-03 requires a distinct sub-TLV from the set of sub-TLVs defined for TLV 242 to advertise RLD. If this model were to be applied for other types of "MSD", I can foresee consumption of a significant number of sub-TLV codepoints just for all the flavors of "MSD". This is one reason we defined the generic MSD sub-TLV format in draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd. A single sub-TLV can be used to advertise as many different MSD types as necessary. There are also other benefits: An IGP agnostic registry is defined to assign MSD types. This means the same type value can be used in OSPF, IS-IS, and in BGP-LS. In IS-IS there is a small efficiency gain in that we do not have to advertise a length for each MSD type. I look forward to feedback from you once the new revision of the MSD draft is published. Thanx. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Xuxiaohu [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 6:40 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) > <[email protected]>; Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; isis- > [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: 答复: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd- > 07 > > Hi Les, > > If I understand it correctly, the MSD concept was originated from > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11#page-7) as > described below: > > "The "Maximum SID Depth" (1 > octet) field (MSD) specifies the maximum number of SIDs (MPLS label > stack depth in the context of this document) that a PCC is capable of > imposing on a packet." > > Before considering expanding the semantics of the MSD concept as defined > in the above PCE-SR draft, how about first considering renaming the > capability of imposing the maximum number of labels so as to eliminate > possible confusions, e.g., Writable Label-stack Depth (WLD) as opposed to > the Readable Label-stack Depth (RLD) as defined in > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc) and > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc) ? > > Best regards, > Xiaohu > > > -----邮件原件----- > > 发件人: Isis-wg [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Les Ginsberg > > (ginsberg) > > 发送时间: 2017年12月21日 4:02 > > 收件人: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant); Christian Hopps; [email protected] > > 抄送: [email protected]; [email protected] > > 主题: Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for > > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07 > > > > Ketan - > > > > Thanx for the comments. > > I think we do want to allow MSD support for values other than > > imposition values. We will revise the text so we are not restricted to only > imposition cases. > > > > Les > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 1:51 AM > > > To: Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; [email protected] > > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > > > Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for > > > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07 > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I support this document and would like to ask the authors and WG to > > > consider if we can expand the scope of this draft to not just > > > "imposition" of the SID stack but also other similar limits related > > > to other > > actions (e.g. > > > reading, processing, etc.). With Segment Routing, we are coming > > > across various actions that nodes need to do with the SID stack for > > > different purposes and IMHO it would be useful to extend the MSD > > > ability to cover those as they arise. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Ketan > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Isis-wg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > > Christian Hopps > > > Sent: 20 December 2017 14:03 > > > To: [email protected] > > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > > > Subject: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for > > > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07 > > > > > > > > > The authors have asked for and we are starting a WG Last Call on > > > > > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd > > > / > > > > > > which will last an extended 4 weeks to allow for year-end PTO patterns. > > > > > > An IPR statement exists: > > > > > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf- > > > is > > > is- > > > segment-routing-msd > > > > > > Authors please reply to the list indicating whether you are aware of > > > any > > > *new* IPR. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Chris. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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
