On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wouldn’t L2 reference would be a bit outdated? > There has been work from IEEE and from TRILL in the past as well as other aspects (e.g. RFC 6165, RFC 6326, RFC 6329, RFC 7176) and - particularly with TRILL closing soon - making sure that such work isn't out of scope seems useful. Regards, Alia > > > Cheers, > > Jeff > > > > *From: *OSPF <ospf-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of "Les Ginsberg > (ginsberg)" <ginsb...@cisco.com> > *Date: *Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 15:09 > *To: *Stewart Bryant <stewart.bry...@gmail.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" < > a...@cisco.com>, Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com> > *Cc: *OSPF List <o...@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org> > *Subject: *Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter > > > > It occurred to me after sending this that perhaps a better statement as > regards IS-IS would be: > > > > “LSR’s work is focused on IP/IPv6 and Layer 2 routing…” > > > > though admittedly there isn’t much going on as regards Layer2 and IS-IS at > the moment. > > > > Les > > > > > > *From:* Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Les > Ginsberg (ginsberg) > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2018 2:33 PM > *To:* Stewart Bryant <stewart.bry...@gmail.com>; Acee Lindem (acee) < > a...@cisco.com>; Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* OSPF List <o...@ietf.org>; isis-wg@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter > > > > Since a charter only provides a general definition of the work that falls > within the purview of the WG it requires some adjunct to keep track of the > current priorities. > > That could be the list of milestones (which OSPF has regularly maintained > – but IS-IS has not) – or it could simply be the list of active WG > documents. > > I just don’t see that we should expect the charter to express “work in > progress” now – or in the future. > > > > Alia – do you think the statement about IS-IS: > > > > “LSR’s work is focused on IP routing…” > > > > Could be improved by saying > > > > “LSR’s work is focused on IP/IPv6 routing…” > > > > ??? > > > > Les > > > > > > *From:* Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-boun...@ietf.org > <isis-wg-boun...@ietf.org>] *On Behalf Of *Stewart Bryant > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2018 10:01 AM > *To:* Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* OSPF List <o...@ietf.org>; isis-wg@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter > > > > Yes that fixes that. > > How about: > > s/The following topics are expected to be an initial focus:/ In addition > to ongoing maintenance, the following topics are expected to be an initial > focus:/ > > I am just concerned that we need not to loose focus on work in progress. > > - Stewart > > > > On 24/01/2018 17:54, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > How about: > > > > LSR will coordinate with CCAMP and BIER on their extensions to the LSR > IGPs as > > applicable to LSV protocol operation and scale. > > > > Thanks, > > Acee > > > > *From: *Isis-wg <isis-wg-boun...@ietf.org> <isis-wg-boun...@ietf.org> on > behalf of Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com> <akat...@gmail.com> > *Date: *Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 12:42 PM > *To: *Stewart Bryant <stewart.bry...@gmail.com> <stewart.bry...@gmail.com> > *Cc: *OSPF WG List <o...@ietf.org> <o...@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" > <isis-wg@ietf.org> <isis-wg@ietf.org> <isis-wg@ietf.org> > *Subject: *Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter > > > > Hi Stewart, > > > > Thanks for the quick feedback. Feel free to provide suggestions for text > changes if you have them. > > You've certainly written enough charters :-) > > > > Regards, > > Alia > > > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bry...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Alia, > > I think that this merger is long overdue, and hopefully it will help new > features to be written in an aligned way. > > I think the remit to perform general maintenance should slightly clarified > since the way the charter is written they look like they are at a lower > priority than the enumerated list. > > I would have thought that "LSR can coordinate with CCAMP and BIER on their > extensions " should have been more directive. > > - Stewart > > > > On 24/01/2018 17:18, Alia Atlas wrote: > > Here is the proposed charter for the LSR working group > > that will be created from the SPF and ISIS working groups. > > > > This is scheduled for internal review for the IESG telechat on February 8. > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lsr/ > > > > The Link-State Routing (LSR) Working Group is chartered to document > current protocol implementation practices and improvements, protocol usage > scenarios, maintenance and extensions of link-state routing interior > gateway protocols (IGPs) with a focus on IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3. The > LSR Working Group is formed by merging the isis and ospf WGs and will take > on all their existing adopted work at the time of chartering. > > > > IS-IS is an IGP specified and standardized by ISO through ISO 10589:2002 > and additional RFC standards with extensions to support IP that has been > deployed in the Internet for decades. For the IS-IS protocol, LSR’s work > is focused on IP routing, currently based on the agreement in RFC 3563 with > ISO/JTC1/SC6. The LSR WG will interact with other standards bodies that > have responsible for standardizing IS-IS. > > > > OSPFv2 [RFC 2328 and extensions], is an IGP that has been deployed in the > Internet for decades. OSPFv3 [RFC5340 and extensions] provides OSPF for > IPv6 and IPv4 [RFC5838] which can be delivered over IPv6 or IPv4 [RFC 7949]. > > > > The LSR Working Group will generally manage its specific work items by > milestones agreed with the responsible Area Director. > > > > The following topics are expected to be an initial focus: > > > > 1) Improving OSPF support for IPv6 and extensions using OSPFv3 LSA > Extendibility. > > 2) Extensions needed for Segment Routing and associated architectural > changes > > 3) YANG models for IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3 and extensions > > 4) Extensions for source-destination routing [draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src- > routing] > > 5) Potentially, extensions to better support specific network topologies > such as > > ones commonly used in data centers. > > > > The Link-State Routing (LSR) Working Group will coordinate with other > working groups, such as RTGWG, SPRING, MPLS, TEAS, V6OPS, and 6MAN, to > understand the need for extensions and to confirm that the planned work > meets the needs. LSR can coordinate with CCAMP and BIER on their > extensions to the LSR IGPs as useful. LSR may coordinate with other WGs as > needed. > > > > Regards, > > Alia > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Isis-wg mailing list > > Isis-wg@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list > o...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >
_______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
