Hi Tony,

On 09/02/18 20:04 , Tony Przygienda wrote:
Les has the diff, I'd expect him to publish any minute to the list ...
The encaps was a real defect, the rest is just tightening down the
language/spec where it was too loose/too strict.

OSPF still needs update with conversion TLV removed,

that has been removed already and is NOT anymore in the published version 10.

thanks,
Peter



same paragraph on
encaps could be useful. I hope Greg pinged Peter ...

thanks

tony

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com
<mailto:akat...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Tony Przygienda
    <tonysi...@gmail.com <mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

        Went last nits with Les, we found one issue (encaps section was
        wrong, need to look @ OSPF as well) and basically tightened
        language in few places.


    K - please get that  out with the details of changes to the list.  I
    did my AD review back in Oct and looked at the differences before
    issuing
    IETF Last Call.

    I look forward to reviewing the minor changes.

    Regards,
    Alia

        tony

        On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:45 PM, Greg Shepherd <gjs...@gmail.com
        <mailto:gjs...@gmail.com>> wrote:

            Thanks Les.

            Any other feedback? Looks like the concerns have been
            addressed. Speak now.

            Cheers,
            Greg

            On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
            <ginsb...@cisco.com <mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> wrote:

                Greg –____

                __ __

                This thread is outdated.____

                In V6 of the draft we removed the restriction to limit
                IS-IS BIER support to area boundaries – so Toerless’s
                comment (and my proposed text) are no longer relevant.____

                __ __

                Specifically:____

                __ __

                Section 4.1:____

                __ __

                “At present, IS-IS support for a given BIER
                domain/sub-domain is ____

                                    limited to a single area - or to the
                IS-IS L2 sub-domain.”____

                __ __

                The above text was removed.____

                __ __

                Section 4.2____

                __ __

                o  BIER sub-TLVs MUST NOT be included when a prefix
                reachability____

                       advertisement is leaked between levels.____

                __ __

                Was changed to____

                __ __

                o  BIER sub-TLVs MUST be included when a prefix
                reachability____

                       advertisement is leaked between levels.____

                __ __

                This aligns IS-IS and OSPF drafts in this regard.____

                __ __

                     Les____

                __ __

                *From:*Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjs...@gmail.com
                <mailto:gjs...@gmail.com>]
                *Sent:* Thursday, February 01, 2018 2:23 AM
                *To:* Toerless Eckert <t...@cs.fau.de <mailto:t...@cs.fau.de>>
                *Cc:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com
                <mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>>; Tony Przygienda
                <tonysi...@gmail.com <mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com>>;
                Hannes Gredler (han...@gredler.at
                <mailto:han...@gredler.at>) <han...@gredler.at
                <mailto:han...@gredler.at>>; b...@ietf.org
                <mailto:b...@ietf.org>; isis-wg@ietf.org
                <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org> list <isis-wg@ietf.org
                <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>>; Christian Hopps
                <cho...@chopps.org <mailto:cho...@chopps.org>>


                *Subject:* Re: [Bier] WGLC:
                draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04____

                __ __

                Have these changes been reflected in the draft? We're in
                WGLC but this discussion needs to come to a conclusion
                so we can progress. ____

                __ __

                Greg____

                __ __

                On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Toerless Eckert
                <t...@cs.fau.de <mailto:t...@cs.fau.de>> wrote:____

                    Thanks, Less, that would be lovely!

                    I didn't check the OSPF draft, if its similar state,
                    explanatory text wold equally be appreciated.____


                    On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 11:28:08PM +0000, Les
                    Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
                     > Toerless -
                     >
                     > I am thinking to add a statement in Section 4.1 -
                    something like:
                     >
                     > "At present, IS-IS support for a given BIER
                    domain/sub-domain is limited to a single area - or
                    to the IS-IS L2 sub-domain."
                     >
                     > If you believe this would be helpful I will spin
                    a new version (subject to review/agreement from my
                    co-authors).
                     >
                     >    Les
                     >
                     >
                     > > -----Original Message-----
                     > > From: Toerless Eckert [mailto:t...@cs.fau.de
                    <mailto:t...@cs.fau.de>]
                     > > Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 6:34 AM
                     > > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
                     > > Cc: Tony Przygienda; Hannes Gredler
                    (han...@gredler.at <mailto:han...@gredler.at>); Greg
                    Shepherd;
                     > > b...@ietf.org <mailto:b...@ietf.org>;
                    isis-wg@ietf.org <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org> list;
                    Christian Hopps
                     > > Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC:
                    draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04
                     > >
                     > > Thanks Les
                     > >
                     > > When searching various terms in the doc to
                    figure out what happens i am not
                     > > sure why i missed this one.
                     > >
                     > > But: IMHO, RFCs can not only be the minimum
                    number of words to get a
                     > > running implementation. It also needs to
                    specify what this implementation
                     > > intends to achieve. Otherwise its not possible
                    to do a useful review:
                     > > The reviewer can to verify whether the spec
                    will achieve what it claims to
                     > > achieve is there no definitionn of what it
                    claims to achieve.
                     > >
                     > > If i understand ISIS correctly, my reverse
                    engineering of the intent is:
                     > >
                     > > - BIER TLVs stay within single ISIS areas. BFIR
                    and BFER must therefore be
                     > >   in the same ISIS area: There is no inter-area
                    BIER traffic possible
                     > >   with this specification. This is also true
                    for ISIS area 0.
                     > >
                     > > - The same BIER sub-domain identifiers can be
                    re-used
                     > >   across different ISIS areas without any
                    current impact. If these BFR-IDs
                     > >   are non-overlapping, then this would allow in
                    the future to create a single
                     > >   cross ISIS area BIER sub-domain by leaking
                    TLVs for such a BIER sub-domain
                     > >   across ISIS levels. Leakage is outside the
                    scope of this specificication.
                     > >
                     > > I actually even would like to do the following:
                     > >
                     > > - If BIER sub-domains are made to span multiple
                    ISIS areas and BFR-ids
                     > > assignemtns
                     > >   are made such that all BFR-ids with the same
                    SI are in the same ISIS ara,
                     > >   then it should be in the future reasonably
                    easy to create inter-area BIER
                     > >   not by leaking of the BIER TLV but by having
                    BFIR MPLS unicastBIER packets
                     > >   for different SIs to an appropriate L2L1 BFIR
                    that is part of the destination
                     > > area/SI.
                     > >   (if you would use SI number that are the same
                    as ISIS area numbers then
                     > >    you could probably do this without any new
                    signaling. Not quite sure if
                     > >    you can today easily find L1L2 border router
                    for another area via existing
                     > >    TLVs).
                     > >
                     > >   Alas, this idea will probably be killed
                    because of the BIER architecture
                     > >   intent not to engineer SI assignments in
                    geographical fashions to
                     > >   minimize traffic duplication in the presence
                    of multiple SIs.
                     > >
                     > > Cheers
                     > >     Toerless
                     > >
                     > > On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 06:03:53AM +0000, Les
                    Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
                     > > > Tony/Toerless ???
                     > > >
                     > > > There is an explicit statement as to scope:
                     > > >
                     > > > <snip>
                     > > > Section 4.2
                     > > > ???
                     > > >    o  BIER sub-TLVs MUST NOT be included when
                    a prefix reachability
                     > > >       advertisement is leaked between levels.
                     > > > <end snip>
                     > > >
                     > > > Tony seems to have forgotten that we had a
                    discussion about how BIER
                     > > might be supported across areas and the
                    conclusion was we did not know
                     > > how to do that yet.
                     > > > (Sorry Tony)
                     > > >
                     > > > Note this is ???consistent??? with
                    https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bier-
                    <https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bier->
                     > > ospf-bier-extensions-07.txt Section
                    2.5<https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-
                    <https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf->
                     > >
                    bier-ospf-bier-extensions-07.txt%20Section%202.5> -
                    which limits the
                     > > flooding scope of BIER information to a single
                    area unless it can be validated
                     > > that the best path to the prefix with BIER info
                    can be validated to be to a
                     > > router which itself advertised the BIER info.
                    This is not something IS-IS can do
                     > > since a single IS-IS instance only supports one
                    area and therefore does not
                     > > have the Level-1 advertisements of the
                    originating router when that router is
                     > > in another area.
                     > > >
                     > > > A few more responses inline.
                     > > >
                     > > > From: BIER [mailto:bier-boun...@ietf.org
                    <mailto:bier-boun...@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Tony
                    Przygienda
                     > > > Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 5:17 AM
                     > > > To: Toerless Eckert
                     > > > Cc: Hannes Gredler (han...@gredler.at
                    <mailto:han...@gredler.at>); Greg Shepherd;
                    b...@ietf.org <mailto:b...@ietf.org>;
                     > > > isis-wg@ietf.org <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
                    list; Christian Hopps
                     > > > Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC:
                    draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04
                     > > >
                     > > > Terminology is a bit nits  IMO since the doc
                    is reading clear enough for
                     > > someone who read BIER & ISIS. I can reread it
                    or Les can comment whether
                     > > we should tighten glossary ...
                     > > >
                     > > > With the scope I agree, that got lost and the
                    doc should be possibly rev'ed
                     > > before closing LC. Yes, we flood AD wide was
                    the agreement but something
                     > > mentioning that this could change in the future
                    is good so we are forced to
                     > > give it some thought how that would transition ...
                     > > >
                     > > > Thinking further though, in ISIS we have a
                    clean document really. The  BIER
                     > > sub-TLVs go into well defined TLVs in terms of
                    flooding scope. Normal L1-L2
                     > > redistribution can be used to get the info to
                    all needed places AFAIS. So
                     > > maybe nothing needs to be written. I wait for
                    Les to chime in.
                     > > >
                     > > > OSPF I would have to look @ scopes again &
                    think whether we need to
                     > > write something or maybe Peter can comment ...
                     > > >
                     > > > --- tony
                     > > >
                     > > >
                     > > >
                     > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Toerless Eckert
                     > > <t...@cs.fau.de
                    <mailto:t...@cs.fau.de><mailto:t...@cs.fau.de
                    <mailto:t...@cs.fau.de>>> wrote:
                     > > > Sorry, past the two weeks, but hopefully
                    benign textual comments:
                     > > >
                     > > > We tried to find an explicit statement about
                    the scope of BIER TLVs - eg:
                     > > > are they meant to stay within an area, have
                    some redistribution across
                     > > > areas/levels or not.
                     > > >
                     > > > Tony said WG agreement was to have these TLV
                    be flooded across the
                     > > > whole ISIS domain for now (this draft). So an
                    explicit statement to that
                     > > effect would
                     > > > be great (All BIER sub-domains TLVs are
                    flooded across all ISIS areas/levels,
                     > > so they span the whole ISIS domain).
                     > > >
                     > > > Also, if future work may/should could improve
                    on that maybe some
                     > > > sentence about that (i guess one could just
                    have ISIS intra-area BIER sub-
                     > > domains ?).
                     > > >
                     > > > Also: Do a check about possible ambiguity of
                    any generic terms like
                     > > sub-domain, level, area, topology so that
                    reader that don't know the
                     > > terminology ofall protocols (ISIS, BIER) by
                    heart can easily know which
                     > > protocol is referred to.
                     > > >
                     > > > [Les:] There is no mention of ???level??? in
                    the document.
                     > > > The use of ???sub-domain??? is clearly always
                    associated with ???BIER???.
                     > > > ???topology??? is always used as an RFC 5120
                    topology ??? therefore
                     > > clearly an IS-IS topology.
                     > > > There is only one use of the term ???area???
                    (in Section 5.1). That text
                     > > might deserve a bit of clarification given this
                    might be either a Level 1 area or
                     > > the Level2 sub-domain. I???ll take a pass at it.
                     > > > (BTW ??? I am talking about IS-IS
                    area/L2sub-domain Toerless. ???)
                     > > >
                     > > > I don???t see that any other clarification is
                    needed ??? but Toerless ??? if
                     > > you can point to any specific
                    sentences/paragraphs which you find confusing
                     > > - I???ll take a second look.
                     > > >
                     > > >    Les
                     > > >
                     > > >
                     > > > I guess there are no BIER level, area or
                    topologies, but still makes
                     > > > reading easier if the doc would say "ISIS
                    level", "ISIS area", or at
                     > > > least have them in the Terminology section.
                    And probably in
                     > > > terminology say "domain -> in the context of
                    this document the BIER
                     > > domain which is also the same as the ISIS domain"
                     > > > (which i hope is the correct statement, see
                    above).
                     > > >
                     > > > Cheers
                     > > >     Toerless
                     > > >
                     > > > _______________________________________________
                     > > > BIER mailing list
                     > > > b...@ietf.org
                    <mailto:b...@ietf.org><mailto:b...@ietf.org
                    <mailto:b...@ietf.org>>
                     > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
                    <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>
                     > > >
                     > > >
                     > > >
                     > > > --
                     > > > We???ve heard that a million monkeys at a
                    million keyboards could
                     > > produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now,
                    thanks to the Internet,
                     > > we know that is not true.
                     > > > ???Robert Wilensky
                     > >
                     > > --
                     > > ---
                     > > t...@cs.fau.de <mailto:t...@cs.fau.de>____

                __ __




        _______________________________________________
        BIER mailing list
        b...@ietf.org <mailto:b...@ietf.org>
        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
        <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>





_______________________________________________
BIER mailing list
b...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier


_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
Isis-wg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

Reply via email to