Yes, I agree with Chris. That seems as a reasonable approach going forward.
G/ -----Original Message----- From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christian Hopps Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 16:32 To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt I think that the only time we should include the protocol (in addition to '-lsr-') is if we have split documents (for whatever reason) on the same solution. We have an example of this actually: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-09 draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-09 Going forward we either combine these types of documents into a single document (discussion started @101) so "-lsr-" is appropriate, or if there's some reason not to merge them then we have 2 documents that need the protocol identifier to disambiguate. In this case there's no ambiguity so I don't see the need of adding an extra "-isis-". Thanks, Chris. Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> writes: > Well...this raises a topic on which I would like to have feedback from the WG. > > Combining IS-IS/OSPF into one working group is fine - no argument there. > But, we now may be producing two classes of documents: > > 1)Documents which are specific to a protocol (IS-IS or OSPFv2 or > OSPFv3) > > 2)Documents which cover 2 or more protocols > > draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt is Category #1 - and there is NO CHANCE > this document will EVER cover OSPF - since OSPF already has RFC 7471 and this > bis document is a correction to the IS-IS specific RFC7810. Calling it > "-lsr-" to me is simply confusing as it in no way indicates that it is IS-IS > specific. > I suggest that any document which falls into Category 1 should continue to > follow the traditional protocol specific naming. > If this somehow violates some IETF rule then I suppose we could use > "-lsr-isis-". (somewhat verbose) > > For Category 2 documents "-lsr-" certainly makes sense. > > Comments?? > > Les > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Acee Lindem (acee) >> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 7:45 AM >> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; lsr@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for >> draft-ginsberg-isis- rfc7810bis-00.txt >> >> Hi Les, >> >> Can you resubmit as draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc7810bis-00.txt? Also, >> please add a "Changes from RFC 7810" section to the "Introduction". I >> see you have added >> RFC8174 to the "Requirements Language" section already. >> >> I think we should accept this as an LSR Working Group document - does >> anyone disagree? >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> On 3/30/18, 6:39 PM, "Lsr on behalf of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" >> <lsr- boun...@ietf.org on behalf of ginsb...@cisco.com> wrote: >> >> Folks - >> >> A bis version of RFC 7810 has been submitted to address the issue >> reported in Errata ID: 5293 >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7810 >> >> Given that there exist implementations which have interpreted the >> ambiguous encoding of some sub-TLVs in different/non-interoperable >> ways it was felt that a bis version of the RFC was justified. >> Please see the Appendix of the draft for a discussion of the >> changes from RFC 7810 and the reasons why. >> >> Les >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org <internet-dra...@ietf.org> >> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 3:33 PM >> To: Qin Wu <sunse...@huawei.com>; David Ward (wardd) >> <wa...@cisco.com>; Spencer Giacolone <spencer.giacal...@gmail.com>; >> Spencer Giacalone <spencer.giacal...@gmail.com>; John Drake >> <ldr...@juniper.net>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; >> David Ward (wardd) <wa...@cisco.com>; Stefano Previdi <stef...@previdi.net> >> Subject: New Version Notification for >> draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt >> >> >> A new version of I-D, draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt >> has been successfully submitted by Les Ginsberg and posted to the >> IETF repository. >> >> Name: draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis >> Revision: 00 >> Title: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions >> Document date: 2018-03-30 >> Group: Individual Submission >> Pages: 19 >> URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ginsberg-isis- >> rfc7810bis-00.txt >> Status: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis/ >> Htmlized: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00 >> Htmlized: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ginsberg-isis- >> rfc7810bis >> >> >> Abstract: >> In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial >> information networks (e.g., stock market data providers), network- >> performance criteria (e.g., latency) are becoming as critical to >> data-path selection as other metrics. >> >> This document describes extensions to IS-IS Traffic Engineering >> Extensions (RFC 5305) such that network-performance information can >> be distributed and collected in a scalable fashion. The information >> distributed using IS-IS TE Metric Extensions can then be used to make >> path-selection decisions based on network performance. >> >> Note that this document only covers the mechanisms with which >> network-performance information is distributed. The mechanisms for >> measuring network performance or acting on that information, once >> distributed, are outside the scope of this document. >> >> This document obsoletes RFC 7810. >> >> >> >> >> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at >> tools.ietf.org. >> >> The IETF Secretariat >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lsr mailing list >> Lsr@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >> > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
