Hi Uma, great catch and astute observation, thank you! I think that making RTM Capabilities space in IS-IS extendable beyond remaining 13 bit-long space is prudent. But now, as you've pointed out, need to reconcile formats. I'd prefer to take option 1, i.e. use variable length Value field in RTM Capabilities sub-TLV for OSPFv2. Acee, would that be acceptable?
Regards, Greg On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Uma Chunduri <[email protected]> wrote: > Had a quick look at this diff. > > > > This is about unifying the encoding parts in IGP to have a consistent view > for BGP-LS encoding or keeping these separate and yet having a correct > representation in BGP-LS for both IGPs. > > > > == > > With variable length bit field for Section 4.5 and fixed 4 byte value (as > indicated as MUST for length) in section 4.3 - I saw a discrepancy in > section 4.6 (BGP-LS) which is referencing section 4.3. > > > > You have multiple options to fix this: > > > > 1. Change section 4.3 to match section 4.5 (I am not sure why we > have to have variable length for this bit field to start with in this case > like rfc 7794…but I won’t say much now) > > 2. Change Section 4.6 to represent differences in encoding section > 4.5 and 4.3 correctly. > > “Length, RTM, and Reserved fields as defined in Section 4.3.” > > 3. Lastly unify section 4.5 to 4.3 i.e., 4 byte value with 3 bits > defined and 29 bits reserved. > > -- > > Uma C. > > > > *From:* mpls [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Les Ginsberg > (ginsberg) > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 31, 2017 8:22 AM > *To:* Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]; Isis-wg < > [email protected]>; [email protected]; > TEAS WG Chairs <[email protected]>; [email protected]; TEAS WG < > [email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [mpls] [OSPF] Working group last call on > draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time > > > > Greg – > > > > Looks good. > > > > Les > > > > *From:* Greg Mirsky [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 31, 2017 8:06 AM > *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > *Cc:* Loa Andersson; [email protected]; TEAS WG; [email protected]; Isis-wg; > [email protected]; [email protected]; TEAS > WG Chairs; [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [OSPF] Working group last call on > draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time > > > > Hi Les, > > thank you for your patience and apologies for missing it. > > Diff and the update been attached. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 5:07 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Greg – > > > > Almost… > > > > Please change the title of Section 7.5 to “IS-IS RTM Capability sub-TLV”. > > > > Please change the title of Table 5 to “IS-IS RTM Capability sub-TLV > Registry Description”. > > > > The common point being since this is not exclusively for TLV 22 we do not > want to say “for TLV 22”. > > Thanx. > > > > Les > > > > > > *From:* Greg Mirsky [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Monday, January 30, 2017 11:43 PM > > > *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > *Cc:* Loa Andersson; [email protected]; TEAS WG; [email protected]; Isis-wg; > [email protected]; [email protected]; TEAS > WG Chairs; [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [OSPF] Working group last call on > draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time > > > > Hi Les, > > many thanks for your the most detailed suggestions. Hope I've it right. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Greg – > > > > Thanx for the quick turnaround. > > > > Section 4.5 (revised text) > > > > The capability to support RTM on a particular link (interface) is > > advertised in a new sub-TLV which may be included in TLVs advertising > > Intemediate System (IS) Reachability on a specific link (TLVs 22, 23, > 222, and 223). > > > > The format for the RTM Capabilities sub-TLV is presented in Figure 5 > > > > 0 1 2 > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 ... > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+... > > | Type | Length | RTM | ... > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+... > > > > Figure 5: RTM Capability sub-TLV > > > > … (Remainder unchanged) > > > > Section 7.5 (revised text) > > > > 7.5. IS-IS RTM Capability sub-TLV > > > > IANA is requested to assign a new Type for RTM capability sub-TLV > > from the Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223 registry as > > follows: > > > > +------+-------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+ > > | Type | Description | 22 | 23 | 141 | 222 | 223 | Reference | > > +------+-------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+ > > | TBA3 | RTM | y | y | n | y | y | This document | > > | | Capability | | | | | > | | > > +------+-------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+ > > > > Table 5: IS-IS RTM Capability sub-TLV Registry Description > > > > > > Thanx. > > > > Les > > > > *From:* Greg Mirsky [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Monday, January 30, 2017 10:36 PM > *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > *Cc:* Loa Andersson; [email protected]; TEAS WG; [email protected]; Isis-wg; > [email protected]; [email protected]; TEAS > WG Chairs; [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [OSPF] Working group last call on > draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time > > > > Hi Les, > > attached are diff and the updated version -14. Would be much obliged to > hear from you if the updates are according to your suggestions and address > your comments. > > > > Kind regards, > > Greg > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Loa - > > > > The change for IS-IS encoding to utilize a sub-TLV of TLV 22 et al to > advertise RTM capability is a better solution than the previous proposal > and this has my support. > > However, there are some details as regards the proposed sub-TLV that > should be revised. > > > > 1)Rather than use a fixed 16 bit field for the flags I suggest you utilize > the encoding style introduced in RFC 7794 (see Section 2.1) which allows > for a variable length flags field. This addresses two issues: > > > > o You need never worry that the size of the flags field will be too > small for future extensions > > o It minimizes the number of bytes required to be sent > > > > The latter point is something IS-IS has always been more conservative > about than OSPF because of the fixed size of an LSP set which can be > advertised by a single router. > > > > 2)In the IANA considerations you have limited the sub-TLV to being used in > TLV 22 only, but there is no reason to do so. This does not allow MT to be > supported and it needlessly prevents use of the sub-TLV by the RFC 5311 > extensions (however unpopular those may be). I can understand why the > sub-TLV may not be useful in TLV 141, therefore I suggest the table in > Section 7.5 be revised to be: > > > > > > | Type | Description | 22 | 23 | 141 | 222 | 223 | Reference > | > > +------+-------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+ > > | TBA3 | RTM | y | y | n | y | y | This document > | > > +------+-------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+ > > > > > i.e. "y" for all but TLV 141 (in case the ASCII art doesn't translate well > in your mailer). > > > > You should also remove the reference to RFC 5305 in Section 4.5 as it is > too limiting. Simply referencing the IANA registry http://www.iana.org/ > assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml#isis-tlv- > codepoints-22-23-141-222-223 should be sufficient. All necessary > references can be found there. > > > > 3)An editorial correction: > > > > Introduction 3rd paragraph: > > > > s/ Althugh/ Although > > > > Les > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: OSPF [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson > > > Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 8:02 AM > > > To: [email protected]; TEAS WG; [email protected]; Isis-wg > > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > TEAS > > > WG Chairs; [email protected]; [email protected] > > > Subject: [OSPF] Working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time > > > > > > Working Groups, > > > > > > This is to initiate a two week working group last call in four working > groups on > > > draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-13. > > > > > > The MPLS working group has done an earlier working group last call and a > > > request for publication has been made. > > > > > > The changes to the document were such that we decided to do a new > > > working group last call and extend it to MPLS, TEAS, OSPF and IS-IS. > > > > > > There are three major changes between the version of the document for > > > which publication was requested are: > > > > > > (1) that section 7 " One-step Clock and Two-step Clock Modes" has been > > > moved up to become section 2.1. > > > (2) that a sub-TLV for TLV 22 instead of TLV 251 is used to RTM > > > Capability when IS-IS used advertise RTM capabilities > > > (3) BGP-LS has been added as a RTM capability advertisement method > > > > > > A side-by-side diff between version -12 and -13 is available at: > > > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-13 > > > > > > Please send your comments to the mpls wg mailing list ([email protected]), > if > > > you are not subscribed to the mpls wg list, send to "your own" > > > working group mailing list, and we'll make sure they are posted to the > MPLS > > > wg list. > > > > > > There were one IPR disclosure against this document. > > > > > > All the authors and contributors have stated on the working group > mailing list > > > that they are not aware of any other IPRs that relates to this document. > > > > > > This working group last call ends February 13, 2017. > > > > > > > > > /Loa > > > MPLS wg co-chairs > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Loa Andersson email: [email protected] > > > Senior MPLS Expert [email protected] > > > Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > OSPF mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
