Les
I agree wrt L2
Isn't another focus collecting the information to feed into an SDN
controller via BGP-LS? That is really network layer state collection
rather than routing in the traditional sense.
- Stewart
On 24/01/2018 23:09, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
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:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Les
Ginsberg (ginsberg)
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2018 2:33 PM
*To:* Stewart Bryant <[email protected]>; Acee Lindem (acee)
<[email protected]>; Alia Atlas <[email protected]>
*Cc:* OSPF List <[email protected]>; [email protected]
*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:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of
*Stewart Bryant
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2018 10:01 AM
*To:* Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>;
Alia Atlas <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Cc:* OSPF List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>;
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*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
<[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>on
behalf of Alia Atlas <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>
*Date: *Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 12:42 PM
*To: *Stewart Bryant
<[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc: *OSPF WG List <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>,
"[email protected]"<mailto:[email protected]><[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>
*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
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
