In addition to already discussed typedefs how about unified GPS coordinates which is common across number of working groups for starter ?
Have Routing Design Team considered it ? Best, RR. On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Robert, > > Feel free to suggest validated common YANG typedefs for consideration by > the Routing Design Team…. I’m not worried about adding needed types for a > few more weeks. It is the few more quarters that I’m worried about. This is > also consistent with the direction we are receiving from the ADs. > Thanks, > Acee > > From: <[email protected]> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 5:06 PM > To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]> > Cc: Jeff Haas <[email protected]>, Routing WG <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-06.txt > > Hi Acee, > > Progressing it quickly and incomplete will result in each independent > routing model coming with their own likely creating pretty massive > conflicts and confusion. > > So IMHO we should really make sure all necessary and common between > different protocols elements are defined here even if as result it would > get delayed few more weeks. > > Cheers, > R, > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Jeff, Robert, >> >> We weren’t sure that SOO would be used beyond the BGP model. I can add >> typedef site-of-origin with format <4-octet-asn:2-octet-number>. >> >> As far as RFC 5701 is concerned, we could add types ipv6-route-target and >> ipv6-site-of-origin with format <ipv6-address:2-octet-number>. >> >> Note that the intent is to progress this quickly so that usage doesn’t >> block other models. It is not to get every present and future common >> routing type that might be useful prior to progression. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> >> On 6/20/17, 3:43 PM, "rtgwg on behalf of Jeffrey Haas" >> <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >Robert, >> > >> >On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 09:25:51PM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote: >> >> Let's note that I had similar concerns on RT definition and more >> >>expressed >> >> to the list in Nov 2016 however they were not considered :(. >> > >> >I'm in my typical far behind on list mode, so I may have missed this. :-) >> > >> >I agree the other structured formats are worth considering. >> > >> >A challenge the authors of the draft have is canonical formatting for new >> >structured formats while at the same time providing access to the >> opaquely >> >until they have been thus defined. >> > >> >I would urge the chairs to request attention from IDR and BESS as part of >> >the WGLC on this document. Sue Hares responded earlier in the thread, so >> >it >> >at least has her attention. >> > >> >-- Jeff >> > >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >> From: Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> >> >> Date: Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:34 PM >> >> Subject: Re: Draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-routing-types >> >> To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> >> >> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> Hi Acee, >> >> >> >> SOO has similar format to RT however RT is defined only partially. >> >>There is >> >> existing extension to RFC4360 in the form of RFC5668 which defines new >> >> structure of both RT and SOO (Route Origin). >> >> >> >> Also I think there important this draft needs to define type for VRF as >> >>VRF >> >> as such is used across a lot of different applications way beyond >> >>original >> >> L3VPN use intention. >> >> >> >> And I think there is many more common elements ... just think of recent >> >>geo >> >> coordinates shred by 4 WGs (if not more ...). >> >> >> >> Thx, >> >> R. >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >rtgwg mailing list >> >[email protected] >> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg >> >> >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
