Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

[Shraddha Hegde]

OSPF WG,

WG consensus seems to be graceful-link-shutdown.
I’ll update the draft with graceful-link-shutdown and also add some text
Describing this mechanism can also be used when the real intent is not to 
shutdown
the link.

Let me know if there are any objections.

Rgds
Shraddha

From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2018 11:31 PM
To: Pushpasis Sarkar ; Bruno Decraene 

Cc: Shraddha Hegde ; Acee Lindem (acee) ; 
Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Joel Halpern 
; gen-art@ietf.org; o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

If the WG consensus is for “GLS” so be it…but I would like to reemphasize two 
things:

1)There are use cases where the intent is NOT to shutdown the link

2)Once the link is shutdown the extension is no longer used since there is no 
longer an adjacency – so to me it makes a lot more sense to pick a name which 
reflects how the link is to be used while it is still up.

   Les



From: Pushpasis Sarkar [mailto:pushpasis.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 9:22 AM
To: Bruno Decraene >
Cc: Shraddha Hegde >; Acee 
Lindem (acee) >; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) 
>; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) 
>; Joel Halpern 
>; 
gen-art@ietf.org; o...@ietf.org; 
i...@ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

Hi Joel et al,

+1 for 'graceful-link-shutdown'. Another possibility may be 
'link-decommission'..

Thanks and regards
-Pushpasis

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 7:09 PM, 
> wrote:


From: Shraddha Hegde
How about “graceful-link-shutdown” ?

Looks good to me.

Also, FYI, for BGP sessions, in the GROW WG we used the term “Graceful BGP 
session shutdown” and named the BGP community “GRACEFUL_SHUTDOWN” so this would 
align on the terminology.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut-13

Best regards,
--Bruno


Rgds
Shraddha



From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 6:50 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >; 
Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) >; Joel 
Halpern >; 
gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

It is not in “maintenance" mode yet as it is still being used. However, it is 
better than “overload”. “pending-maintenance” is a bit long which is why I 
suggested “pending-shutdown” since “shutdown” is term that vendors have used 
for eons to described an interface that is not in service.
Thanks,
Acee

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" >
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 11:56 PM
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" >, 
Acee Lindem >, "Joel M. Halpern" 
>, 
"gen-art@ietf.org" 
>
Cc: OSPF WG List >, 
"i...@ietf.org" >, 
"draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org"
 
>
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

Ketan –

“maintenance” I could live with.

“GIR” seems to not be generic enough.

   Les


From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 8:09 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) >; Les Ginsberg 
(ginsberg) >; Joel Halpern 
>; 

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

[Pushpasis Sarkar]

Hi Acee,

LOL.. Might as well be 'link-on-break'.. :)

Anyways graceful-link-shutdown seems to be the most agreed upon.

Thanks and regards,
-Pushpasis


On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 9:29 PM, Acee Lindem (acee)  wrote:

> Hi Pushpasis, Shraddha, et al,
>
> From: Pushpasis Sarkar 
> Date: Monday, January 8, 2018 at 12:22 PM
> To: Bruno Decraene 
> Cc: Shraddha Hegde , Acee Lindem ,
> "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" , "Ketan Talaulikar
> (ketant)" , "Joel M. Halpern" , "
> gen-art@ietf.org" , OSPF WG List , "
> i...@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-ospf-link-
> overload@ietf.org" 
> Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11
> Resent-From: 
> Resent-To: Shraddha Hegde , Pushpasis Sarkar <
> pushpasis.i...@gmail.com>, Hannes Gredler , <
> mnand...@ebay.com>, Luay Jalil , Acee Lindem <
> a...@cisco.com>, , Alvaro Retana ,
> Deborah Brungard , Alia Atlas , Acee
> Lindem 
> Resent-Date: Monday, January 8, 2018 at 12:22 PM
>
> Hi Joel et al,
>
> +1 for 'graceful-link-shutdown'.
>
>
> I think we are converging on this. I must admit that it is much better
> than “link-overload”. Although Les raises a good point that this behavior
> could be used for other use cases, subsequent discussions have indicated
> that these could be handled differently.
>
>
> Another possibility may be 'link-decommission'..
>
>
> This implies too much permanence. If you decommission something, you are
> more or less retiring It which is not this use case. This is more of giving
> the link a rest. Maybe we could use the there term “Link on Leave” or LOL
> state ;^).
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
> Thanks and regards
> -Pushpasis
>
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 7:09 PM,  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Shraddha Hegde
>>
>> How about “graceful-link-shutdown” ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Looks good to me.
>>
>> Also, FYI, for BGP sessions, in the GROW WG we used the term “Graceful BGP 
>> session shutdown” and named the BGP community “GRACEFUL_SHUTDOWN” so this 
>> would align on the terminology.
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut-13
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> --Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Rgds
>>
>> Shraddha
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com ]
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 5, 2018 6:50 PM
>> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Ketan Talaulikar
>> (ketant) ; Joel Halpern ;
>> gen-art@ietf.org
>> *Cc:* o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload.
>> a...@ietf.org
>> *Subject:* Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-
>> 11
>>
>>
>>
>> It is not in “maintenance" mode yet as it is still being used. However,
>> it is better than “overload”. “pending-maintenance” is a bit long which is
>> why I suggested “pending-shutdown” since “shutdown” is term that vendors
>> have used for eons to described an interface that is not in service.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Acee
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" 
>> *Date: *Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 11:56 PM
>> *To: *"Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" , Acee Lindem <
>> a...@cisco.com>, "Joel M. Halpern" , "
>> gen-art@ietf.org" 
>> *Cc: *OSPF WG List , "i...@ietf.org" , "
>> draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org" <
>> draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org>
>> *Subject: *RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-
>> 11
>>
>>
>>
>> Ketan –
>>
>>
>>
>> “maintenance” I could live with.
>>
>>
>>
>> “GIR” seems to not be generic enough.
>>
>>
>>
>>Les
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 04, 2018 8:09 PM
>> *To:* Acee Lindem (acee) ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <
>> ginsb...@cisco.com>; Joel Halpern ; gen-art@ietf.org
>> *Cc:* o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload.
>> a...@ietf.org
>> *Subject:* RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-
>> 11
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>>
>> May I suggest something more generic like “Maintenance Mode” or “Graceful
>> Insertion/Removal (GIR) Mode” which could be defined so as to cover the
>> multiple scenarios in question (e.g. pending shutdown, down for repairs,
>> last resort due to poor link quality, etc.).
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ketan
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* OSPF [mailto:ospf-boun...@ietf.org ] *On
>> Behalf Of *Acee Lindem (acee)
>> *Sent:* 05 January 2018 08:14
>> *To:* Les Ginsberg 

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

[Acee Lindem (acee)]

Hi Pushpasis, Shraddha, et al,

From: Pushpasis Sarkar 
>
Date: Monday, January 8, 2018 at 12:22 PM
To: Bruno Decraene >
Cc: Shraddha Hegde >, Acee 
Lindem >, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" 
>, "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" 
>, "Joel M. Halpern" 
>, 
"gen-art@ietf.org" 
>, OSPF WG List 
>, "i...@ietf.org" 
>, 
"draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org"
 
>
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11
Resent-From: >
Resent-To: Shraddha Hegde >, 
Pushpasis Sarkar >, 
Hannes Gredler >, 
>, Luay Jalil 
>, Acee Lindem 
>, 
>, Alvaro Retana 
>, Deborah Brungard 
>, Alia Atlas 
>, Acee Lindem 
>
Resent-Date: Monday, January 8, 2018 at 12:22 PM

Hi Joel et al,

+1 for 'graceful-link-shutdown'.

I think we are converging on this. I must admit that it is much better than 
“link-overload”. Although Les raises a good point that this behavior could be 
used for other use cases, subsequent discussions have indicated that these 
could be handled differently.


Another possibility may be 'link-decommission'..

This implies too much permanence. If you decommission something, you are more 
or less retiring It which is not this use case. This is more of giving the link 
a rest. Maybe we could use the there term “Link on Leave” or LOL state ;^).

Thanks,
Acee


Thanks and regards
-Pushpasis

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 7:09 PM, 
> wrote:


From: Shraddha Hegde

How about “graceful-link-shutdown” ?

Looks good to me.

Also, FYI, for BGP sessions, in the GROW WG we used the term “Graceful BGP 
session shutdown” and named the BGP community “GRACEFUL_SHUTDOWN” so this would 
align on the terminology.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut-13

Best regards,
--Bruno


Rgds
Shraddha



From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 6:50 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >; 
Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) >; Joel 
Halpern >; 
gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

It is not in “maintenance" mode yet as it is still being used. However, it is 
better than “overload”. “pending-maintenance” is a bit long which is why I 
suggested “pending-shutdown” since “shutdown” is term that vendors have used 
for eons to described an interface that is not in service.
Thanks,
Acee

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" >
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 11:56 PM
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" >, 
Acee Lindem >, "Joel M. Halpern" 
>, 
"gen-art@ietf.org" 
>
Cc: OSPF WG List >, 
"i...@ietf.org" >, 
"draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org"
 
>
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

Ketan –

“maintenance” I could live with.

“GIR” seems to not be generic enough.

   Les


From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 8:09 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) >; Les Ginsberg 
(ginsberg) 

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

[Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)]

If the WG consensus is for “GLS” so be it…but I would like to reemphasize two 
things:

1)There are use cases where the intent is NOT to shutdown the link

2)Once the link is shutdown the extension is no longer used since there is no 
longer an adjacency – so to me it makes a lot more sense to pick a name which 
reflects how the link is to be used while it is still up.

   Les



From: Pushpasis Sarkar [mailto:pushpasis.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 9:22 AM
To: Bruno Decraene 
Cc: Shraddha Hegde ; Acee Lindem (acee) ; 
Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) 
; Joel Halpern ; gen-art@ietf.org; 
o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

Hi Joel et al,

+1 for 'graceful-link-shutdown'. Another possibility may be 
'link-decommission'..

Thanks and regards
-Pushpasis

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 7:09 PM, 
> wrote:


From: Shraddha Hegde
How about “graceful-link-shutdown” ?

Looks good to me.

Also, FYI, for BGP sessions, in the GROW WG we used the term “Graceful BGP 
session shutdown” and named the BGP community “GRACEFUL_SHUTDOWN” so this would 
align on the terminology.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut-13

Best regards,
--Bruno


Rgds
Shraddha



From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 6:50 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >; 
Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) >; Joel 
Halpern >; 
gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

It is not in “maintenance" mode yet as it is still being used. However, it is 
better than “overload”. “pending-maintenance” is a bit long which is why I 
suggested “pending-shutdown” since “shutdown” is term that vendors have used 
for eons to described an interface that is not in service.
Thanks,
Acee

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" >
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 11:56 PM
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" >, 
Acee Lindem >, "Joel M. Halpern" 
>, 
"gen-art@ietf.org" 
>
Cc: OSPF WG List >, 
"i...@ietf.org" >, 
"draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org"
 
>
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

Ketan –

“maintenance” I could live with.

“GIR” seems to not be generic enough.

   Les


From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 8:09 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) >; Les Ginsberg 
(ginsberg) >; Joel Halpern 
>; 
gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

Hello,

May I suggest something more generic like “Maintenance Mode” or “Graceful 
Insertion/Removal (GIR) Mode” which could be defined so as to cover the 
multiple scenarios in question (e.g. pending shutdown, down for repairs, last 
resort due to poor link quality, etc.).

Thanks,
Ketan

From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: 05 January 2018 08:14
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >; 
Joel Halpern >; 
gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

Hi Les,

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" >
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 9:26 PM
To: Acee Lindem >, "Joel M. Halpern" 
>, 

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

[Pushpasis Sarkar]

Hi Joel et al,

+1 for 'graceful-link-shutdown'. Another possibility may be
'link-decommission'..

Thanks and regards
-Pushpasis

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 7:09 PM,  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* Shraddha Hegde
>
> How about “graceful-link-shutdown” ?
>
>
>
> Looks good to me.
>
> Also, FYI, for BGP sessions, in the GROW WG we used the term “Graceful BGP 
> session shutdown” and named the BGP community “GRACEFUL_SHUTDOWN” so this 
> would align on the terminology.
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut-13
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> --Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> Rgds
>
> Shraddha
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com ]
> *Sent:* Friday, January 5, 2018 6:50 PM
> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Ketan Talaulikar
> (ketant) ; Joel Halpern ;
> gen-art@ietf.org
> *Cc:* o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload.
> a...@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11
>
>
>
> It is not in “maintenance" mode yet as it is still being used. However, it
> is better than “overload”. “pending-maintenance” is a bit long which is why
> I suggested “pending-shutdown” since “shutdown” is term that vendors have
> used for eons to described an interface that is not in service.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
>
>
> *From: *"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" 
> *Date: *Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 11:56 PM
> *To: *"Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" , Acee Lindem <
> a...@cisco.com>, "Joel M. Halpern" , "
> gen-art@ietf.org" 
> *Cc: *OSPF WG List , "i...@ietf.org" , "
> draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org"  overload@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11
>
>
>
> Ketan –
>
>
>
> “maintenance” I could live with.
>
>
>
> “GIR” seems to not be generic enough.
>
>
>
>Les
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 04, 2018 8:09 PM
> *To:* Acee Lindem (acee) ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <
> ginsb...@cisco.com>; Joel Halpern ; gen-art@ietf.org
> *Cc:* o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload.
> a...@ietf.org
> *Subject:* RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> May I suggest something more generic like “Maintenance Mode” or “Graceful
> Insertion/Removal (GIR) Mode” which could be defined so as to cover the
> multiple scenarios in question (e.g. pending shutdown, down for repairs,
> last resort due to poor link quality, etc.).
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ketan
>
>
>
> *From:* OSPF [mailto:ospf-boun...@ietf.org ] *On
> Behalf Of *Acee Lindem (acee)
> *Sent:* 05 January 2018 08:14
> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Joel Halpern <
> j...@joelhalpern.com>; gen-art@ietf.org
> *Cc:* o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload.
> a...@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [OSPF] Genart last call review of
> draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11
>
>
>
> Hi Les,
>
>
>
> *From: *"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" 
> *Date: *Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 9:26 PM
> *To: *Acee Lindem , "Joel M. Halpern" ,
> "gen-art@ietf.org" 
> *Cc: *OSPF WG List , "i...@ietf.org" , "
> draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org"  overload@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11
>
>
>
> > >Minor issues:
>
> > >I understand the WG likes using the term "overload" for a link
>
> > >being taken
>
> > >out of service.  I think people will learn what we mean.  I do wish
>
> > >we had
>
> > >not chosen to misuse the words in this fashion.  This is much more a
>
> > >graceful-link-close indication (or clsoe-pending indication) than
>
> > >it is an
>
> > >overload indication.
>
> >
>
> > I agree with this comment but I wasn’t sure we’d reach consensus on a
>
> > better alternative. However, after some though and consideration of
> current
>
> > OSPF router terminology, I’d propose we use the term “Pending-Shutdown”.
>
> > Does anyone not agree that this is a more appropriate moniker for the TLV
>
> > and state?
>
> >
>
> [Les:] I agree with Joel's comment. The use of the term "overload" is
> unfortunate.
>
> But "pending-shutdown" isn’t appealing to me because - at least in most
> use cases - you aren't actually going to shutdown the link. What you are
> going to do is make a link the "link of last resort".
>
> This seems a better choice.
>
>
>
> That is not the use case - you are going to take the link down. It is not
> going to be the "link of last resort”, it is the currently the “link of
> last resort” and will imminently be taken down.
>
>
>
>
>
> The suggestion from Shraddha that this term was borrowed from IS-IS 

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

[bruno.decraene]

From: Shraddha Hegde

How about “graceful-link-shutdown” ?

Looks good to me.

Also, FYI, for BGP sessions, in the GROW WG we used the term “Graceful BGP 
session shutdown” and named the BGP community “GRACEFUL_SHUTDOWN” so this would 
align on the terminology.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut-13

Best regards,
--Bruno


Rgds
Shraddha



From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 6:50 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >; 
Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) >; Joel 
Halpern >; 
gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

It is not in “maintenance" mode yet as it is still being used. However, it is 
better than “overload”. “pending-maintenance” is a bit long which is why I 
suggested “pending-shutdown” since “shutdown” is term that vendors have used 
for eons to described an interface that is not in service.
Thanks,
Acee

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" >
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 11:56 PM
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" >, 
Acee Lindem >, "Joel M. Halpern" 
>, 
"gen-art@ietf.org" 
>
Cc: OSPF WG List >, 
"i...@ietf.org" >, 
"draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org"
 
>
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

Ketan –

“maintenance” I could live with.

“GIR” seems to not be generic enough.

   Les


From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 8:09 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) >; Les Ginsberg 
(ginsberg) >; Joel Halpern 
>; 
gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

Hello,

May I suggest something more generic like “Maintenance Mode” or “Graceful 
Insertion/Removal (GIR) Mode” which could be defined so as to cover the 
multiple scenarios in question (e.g. pending shutdown, down for repairs, last 
resort due to poor link quality, etc.).

Thanks,
Ketan

From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: 05 January 2018 08:14
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >; 
Joel Halpern >; 
gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

Hi Les,

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" >
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 9:26 PM
To: Acee Lindem >, "Joel M. Halpern" 
>, 
"gen-art@ietf.org" 
>
Cc: OSPF WG List >, 
"i...@ietf.org" >, 
"draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org"
 
>
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11


> >Minor issues:

> >I understand the WG likes using the term "overload" for a link

> >being taken

> >out of service.  I think people will learn what we mean.  I do wish

> >we had

> >not chosen to misuse the words in this fashion.  This is much more a

> >graceful-link-close indication (or clsoe-pending indication) than

> >it is an

> >overload indication.

>

> I agree with this comment but I wasn’t sure we’d reach consensus on a

> better alternative. However, after some though and consideration of current

> OSPF router terminology, I’d propose we use the term “Pending-Shutdown”.

> Does anyone not agree that this is a more 

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

[Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)]

I think the point here is that the link is not necessarily going to be shutdown 
in all cases.

For example, the operator needs to do some testing of the link. They set 
max-metric to divert traffic, then keep the link up so they can send OAM 
traffic over the link and try to determine what problems may exist.

It is a mistake to assume that this mechanism is always intended to be used as 
a precursor to link shutdown.

   Les


From: Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 8:47 AM
To: Shraddha Hegde ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) 
; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Joel 
Halpern ; gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

Works for me.
Acee

From: Shraddha Hegde >
Date: Friday, January 5, 2018 at 11:15 AM
To: Acee Lindem >, "Les Ginsberg 
(ginsberg)" >, "Ketan Talaulikar 
(ketant)" >, "Joel M. Halpern" 
>, 
"gen-art@ietf.org" 
>
Cc: OSPF WG List >, 
"i...@ietf.org" >, 
"draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org"
 
>
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

How about “graceful-link-shutdown” ?

Rgds
Shraddha



From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 6:50 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >; 
Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) >; Joel 
Halpern >; 
gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

It is not in “maintenance" mode yet as it is still being used. However, it is 
better than “overload”. “pending-maintenance” is a bit long which is why I 
suggested “pending-shutdown” since “shutdown” is term that vendors have used 
for eons to described an interface that is not in service.
Thanks,
Acee

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" >
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 11:56 PM
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" >, 
Acee Lindem >, "Joel M. Halpern" 
>, 
"gen-art@ietf.org" 
>
Cc: OSPF WG List >, 
"i...@ietf.org" >, 
"draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org"
 
>
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

Ketan –

“maintenance” I could live with.

“GIR” seems to not be generic enough.

   Les


From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 8:09 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) >; Les Ginsberg 
(ginsberg) >; Joel Halpern 
>; 
gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

Hello,

May I suggest something more generic like “Maintenance Mode” or “Graceful 
Insertion/Removal (GIR) Mode” which could be defined so as to cover the 
multiple scenarios in question (e.g. pending shutdown, down for repairs, last 
resort due to poor link quality, etc.).

Thanks,
Ketan

From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: 05 January 2018 08:14
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >; 
Joel Halpern >; 
gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Genart last call review of 

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

[Acee Lindem (acee)]

Works for me.
Acee

From: Shraddha Hegde >
Date: Friday, January 5, 2018 at 11:15 AM
To: Acee Lindem >, "Les Ginsberg 
(ginsberg)" >, "Ketan Talaulikar 
(ketant)" >, "Joel M. Halpern" 
>, 
"gen-art@ietf.org" 
>
Cc: OSPF WG List >, 
"i...@ietf.org" >, 
"draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org"
 
>
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

How about “graceful-link-shutdown” ?

Rgds
Shraddha



From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 6:50 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >; 
Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) >; Joel 
Halpern >; 
gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

It is not in “maintenance" mode yet as it is still being used. However, it is 
better than “overload”. “pending-maintenance” is a bit long which is why I 
suggested “pending-shutdown” since “shutdown” is term that vendors have used 
for eons to described an interface that is not in service.
Thanks,
Acee

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" >
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 11:56 PM
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" >, 
Acee Lindem >, "Joel M. Halpern" 
>, 
"gen-art@ietf.org" 
>
Cc: OSPF WG List >, 
"i...@ietf.org" >, 
"draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org"
 
>
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

Ketan –

“maintenance” I could live with.

“GIR” seems to not be generic enough.

   Les


From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 8:09 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) >; Les Ginsberg 
(ginsberg) >; Joel Halpern 
>; 
gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

Hello,

May I suggest something more generic like “Maintenance Mode” or “Graceful 
Insertion/Removal (GIR) Mode” which could be defined so as to cover the 
multiple scenarios in question (e.g. pending shutdown, down for repairs, last 
resort due to poor link quality, etc.).

Thanks,
Ketan

From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: 05 January 2018 08:14
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >; 
Joel Halpern >; 
gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

Hi Les,

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" >
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 9:26 PM
To: Acee Lindem >, "Joel M. Halpern" 
>, 
"gen-art@ietf.org" 
>
Cc: OSPF WG List >, 
"i...@ietf.org" >, 
"draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org"
 
>
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11


> >Minor issues:

> >I understand the WG likes using the term 

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

[Shraddha Hegde]

How about “graceful-link-shutdown” ?

Rgds
Shraddha



From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 6:50 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) 
; Joel Halpern ; gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

It is not in “maintenance" mode yet as it is still being used. However, it is 
better than “overload”. “pending-maintenance” is a bit long which is why I 
suggested “pending-shutdown” since “shutdown” is term that vendors have used 
for eons to described an interface that is not in service.
Thanks,
Acee

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" >
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 11:56 PM
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" >, 
Acee Lindem >, "Joel M. Halpern" 
>, 
"gen-art@ietf.org" 
>
Cc: OSPF WG List >, 
"i...@ietf.org" >, 
"draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org"
 
>
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

Ketan –

“maintenance” I could live with.

“GIR” seems to not be generic enough.

   Les


From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 8:09 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) >; Les Ginsberg 
(ginsberg) >; Joel Halpern 
>; 
gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

Hello,

May I suggest something more generic like “Maintenance Mode” or “Graceful 
Insertion/Removal (GIR) Mode” which could be defined so as to cover the 
multiple scenarios in question (e.g. pending shutdown, down for repairs, last 
resort due to poor link quality, etc.).

Thanks,
Ketan

From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: 05 January 2018 08:14
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >; 
Joel Halpern >; 
gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

Hi Les,

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" >
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 9:26 PM
To: Acee Lindem >, "Joel M. Halpern" 
>, 
"gen-art@ietf.org" 
>
Cc: OSPF WG List >, 
"i...@ietf.org" >, 
"draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org"
 
>
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11


> >Minor issues:

> >I understand the WG likes using the term "overload" for a link

> >being taken

> >out of service.  I think people will learn what we mean.  I do wish

> >we had

> >not chosen to misuse the words in this fashion.  This is much more a

> >graceful-link-close indication (or clsoe-pending indication) than

> >it is an

> >overload indication.

>

> I agree with this comment but I wasn’t sure we’d reach consensus on a

> better alternative. However, after some though and consideration of current

> OSPF router terminology, I’d propose we use the term “Pending-Shutdown”.

> Does anyone not agree that this is a more appropriate moniker for the TLV

> and state?

>

[Les:] I agree with Joel's comment. The use of the term "overload" is 
unfortunate.

But "pending-shutdown" isn’t appealing to me because - at least in most use 
cases - you aren't actually going to shutdown the link. What you are going to 
do is make a link the "link of last resort".

This seems a better choice.

That is not the use case - you are going to take the link down. It is not going 
to be the "link of last resort”, it is the currently the “link of last 

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

[Acee Lindem (acee)]

It is not in “maintenance" mode yet as it is still being used. However, it is 
better than “overload”. “pending-maintenance” is a bit long which is why I 
suggested “pending-shutdown” since “shutdown” is term that vendors have used 
for eons to described an interface that is not in service.
Thanks,
Acee

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" >
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 11:56 PM
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" >, 
Acee Lindem >, "Joel M. Halpern" 
>, 
"gen-art@ietf.org" 
>
Cc: OSPF WG List >, 
"i...@ietf.org" >, 
"draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org"
 
>
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

Ketan –

“maintenance” I could live with.

“GIR” seems to not be generic enough.

   Les


From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 8:09 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) >; Les Ginsberg 
(ginsberg) >; Joel Halpern 
>; 
gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

Hello,

May I suggest something more generic like “Maintenance Mode” or “Graceful 
Insertion/Removal (GIR) Mode” which could be defined so as to cover the 
multiple scenarios in question (e.g. pending shutdown, down for repairs, last 
resort due to poor link quality, etc.).

Thanks,
Ketan

From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: 05 January 2018 08:14
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >; 
Joel Halpern >; 
gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

Hi Les,

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" >
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 9:26 PM
To: Acee Lindem >, "Joel M. Halpern" 
>, 
"gen-art@ietf.org" 
>
Cc: OSPF WG List >, 
"i...@ietf.org" >, 
"draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org"
 
>
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11


> >Minor issues:

> >I understand the WG likes using the term "overload" for a link

> >being taken

> >out of service.  I think people will learn what we mean.  I do wish

> >we had

> >not chosen to misuse the words in this fashion.  This is much more a

> >graceful-link-close indication (or clsoe-pending indication) than

> >it is an

> >overload indication.

>

> I agree with this comment but I wasn’t sure we’d reach consensus on a

> better alternative. However, after some though and consideration of current

> OSPF router terminology, I’d propose we use the term “Pending-Shutdown”.

> Does anyone not agree that this is a more appropriate moniker for the TLV

> and state?

>

[Les:] I agree with Joel's comment. The use of the term "overload" is 
unfortunate.

But "pending-shutdown" isn’t appealing to me because - at least in most use 
cases - you aren't actually going to shutdown the link. What you are going to 
do is make a link the "link of last resort".

This seems a better choice.

That is not the use case - you are going to take the link down. It is not going 
to be the "link of last resort”, it is the currently the “link of last resort” 
and will imminently be taken down.




The suggestion from Shraddha that this term was borrowed from IS-IS isn't 
accurate. "overload" in IS-IS has a very different meaning - it indicates a 
node either has an incomplete LSDB or (a la RFC 
3277 )an incomplete forwarding plane.



The only use of "link overload" in IS-IS occurs in 

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

[Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)]

Ketan –

“maintenance” I could live with.

“GIR” seems to not be generic enough.

   Les


From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 8:09 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) 
; Joel Halpern ; gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

Hello,

May I suggest something more generic like “Maintenance Mode” or “Graceful 
Insertion/Removal (GIR) Mode” which could be defined so as to cover the 
multiple scenarios in question (e.g. pending shutdown, down for repairs, last 
resort due to poor link quality, etc.).

Thanks,
Ketan

From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: 05 January 2018 08:14
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >; 
Joel Halpern >; 
gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

Hi Les,

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" >
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 9:26 PM
To: Acee Lindem >, "Joel M. Halpern" 
>, 
"gen-art@ietf.org" 
>
Cc: OSPF WG List >, 
"i...@ietf.org" >, 
"draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org"
 
>
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11


> >Minor issues:

> >I understand the WG likes using the term "overload" for a link

> >being taken

> >out of service.  I think people will learn what we mean.  I do wish

> >we had

> >not chosen to misuse the words in this fashion.  This is much more a

> >graceful-link-close indication (or clsoe-pending indication) than

> >it is an

> >overload indication.

>

> I agree with this comment but I wasn’t sure we’d reach consensus on a

> better alternative. However, after some though and consideration of current

> OSPF router terminology, I’d propose we use the term “Pending-Shutdown”.

> Does anyone not agree that this is a more appropriate moniker for the TLV

> and state?

>

[Les:] I agree with Joel's comment. The use of the term "overload" is 
unfortunate.

But "pending-shutdown" isn’t appealing to me because - at least in most use 
cases - you aren't actually going to shutdown the link. What you are going to 
do is make a link the "link of last resort".

This seems a better choice.

That is not the use case - you are going to take the link down. It is not going 
to be the "link of last resort”, it is the currently the “link of last resort” 
and will imminently be taken down.




The suggestion from Shraddha that this term was borrowed from IS-IS isn't 
accurate. "overload" in IS-IS has a very different meaning - it indicates a 
node either has an incomplete LSDB or (a la RFC 
3277 )an incomplete forwarding plane.



The only use of "link overload" in IS-IS occurs in 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-07#section-3.6 and 
this was added recently to support the (very useful) TE use case which was 
defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11 . When 
this was done the term "link-overload" was cut and pasted from the OSPF draft. 
I think this should also be changed in the IS-IS draft.

Agreed.

Thanks,
Acee



   Les



> Thanks,

> Acee

> >

> >

> >

>

> ___

> OSPF mailing list

> o...@ietf.org

> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

[Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)]

Acee -

From: Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 6:44 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Joel Halpern 
; gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

Hi Les,

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" >
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 9:26 PM
To: Acee Lindem >, "Joel M. Halpern" 
>, 
"gen-art@ietf.org" 
>
Cc: OSPF WG List >, 
"i...@ietf.org" >, 
"draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org"
 
>
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11


> >Minor issues:

> >I understand the WG likes using the term "overload" for a link

> >being taken

> >out of service.  I think people will learn what we mean.  I do wish

> >we had

> >not chosen to misuse the words in this fashion.  This is much more a

> >graceful-link-close indication (or clsoe-pending indication) than

> >it is an

> >overload indication.

>

> I agree with this comment but I wasn’t sure we’d reach consensus on a

> better alternative. However, after some though and consideration of current

> OSPF router terminology, I’d propose we use the term “Pending-Shutdown”.

> Does anyone not agree that this is a more appropriate moniker for the TLV

> and state?

>

[Les:] I agree with Joel's comment. The use of the term "overload" is 
unfortunate.

But "pending-shutdown" isn’t appealing to me because - at least in most use 
cases - you aren't actually going to shutdown the link. What you are going to 
do is make a link the "link of last resort".

This seems a better choice.

That is not the use case - you are going to take the link down. It is not going 
to be the "link of last resort”, it is the currently the “link of last resort” 
and will imminently be taken down.
[Les:] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11#section-2


2.  Motivation

…
   4.  Allow the link to be used as last resort link to prevent traffic
   disruption when alternate paths are not available.


This is the real value of the protocol extension. If the intention was to take 
the link out of service the extension would not be worth much as the behavioral 
difference between (normal metric->max metric->down) vs (normal metric->down) 
is very small.
This is also consistent with my recollection of the service providers 
motivation when the early versions of isis-reverse-metric were presented. The 
question was asked “why don’t you simply take the link down?” and the response 
was “We don’t want to take the link down – we want it to be the link of last 
resort so that if all else fails we can still use the link to get to the node.”

(As an aside, if the idea was to more gracefully redirect traffic away from the 
link in preparation for taking the link down you would need to use a metric 
offset as the isis-reverse-metric draft does. Then you could direct traffic 
away from the link in incremental steps. I don’t mean to suggest this will be a 
common use case of reverse-metric – but it would at least be useful if the 
intent was to take the link down in a short while).

   Les




The suggestion from Shraddha that this term was borrowed from IS-IS isn't 
accurate. "overload" in IS-IS has a very different meaning - it indicates a 
node either has an incomplete LSDB or (a la RFC 
3277 )an incomplete forwarding plane.



The only use of "link overload" in IS-IS occurs in 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-07#section-3.6 and 
this was added recently to support the (very useful) TE use case which was 
defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11 . When 
this was done the term "link-overload" was cut and pasted from the OSPF draft. 
I think this should also be changed in the IS-IS draft.

Agreed.

Thanks,
Acee



   Les



> Thanks,

> Acee

> >

> >

> >

>

> ___

> OSPF mailing list

> o...@ietf.org

> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

[Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)]

Hello,

May I suggest something more generic like “Maintenance Mode” or “Graceful 
Insertion/Removal (GIR) Mode” which could be defined so as to cover the 
multiple scenarios in question (e.g. pending shutdown, down for repairs, last 
resort due to poor link quality, etc.).

Thanks,
Ketan

From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: 05 January 2018 08:14
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Joel Halpern 
; gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: o...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

Hi Les,

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" >
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 9:26 PM
To: Acee Lindem >, "Joel M. Halpern" 
>, 
"gen-art@ietf.org" 
>
Cc: OSPF WG List >, 
"i...@ietf.org" >, 
"draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org"
 
>
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11


> >Minor issues:

> >I understand the WG likes using the term "overload" for a link

> >being taken

> >out of service.  I think people will learn what we mean.  I do wish

> >we had

> >not chosen to misuse the words in this fashion.  This is much more a

> >graceful-link-close indication (or clsoe-pending indication) than

> >it is an

> >overload indication.

>

> I agree with this comment but I wasn’t sure we’d reach consensus on a

> better alternative. However, after some though and consideration of current

> OSPF router terminology, I’d propose we use the term “Pending-Shutdown”.

> Does anyone not agree that this is a more appropriate moniker for the TLV

> and state?

>

[Les:] I agree with Joel's comment. The use of the term "overload" is 
unfortunate.

But "pending-shutdown" isn’t appealing to me because - at least in most use 
cases - you aren't actually going to shutdown the link. What you are going to 
do is make a link the "link of last resort".

This seems a better choice.

That is not the use case - you are going to take the link down. It is not going 
to be the "link of last resort”, it is the currently the “link of last resort” 
and will imminently be taken down.




The suggestion from Shraddha that this term was borrowed from IS-IS isn't 
accurate. "overload" in IS-IS has a very different meaning - it indicates a 
node either has an incomplete LSDB or (a la RFC 
3277 )an incomplete forwarding plane.



The only use of "link overload" in IS-IS occurs in 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-07#section-3.6 and 
this was added recently to support the (very useful) TE use case which was 
defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11 . When 
this was done the term "link-overload" was cut and pasted from the OSPF draft. 
I think this should also be changed in the IS-IS draft.

Agreed.

Thanks,
Acee



   Les



> Thanks,

> Acee

> >

> >

> >

>

> ___

> OSPF mailing list

> o...@ietf.org

> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

[Acee Lindem (acee)]

Hi Les,

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" >
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 9:26 PM
To: Acee Lindem >, "Joel M. Halpern" 
>, 
"gen-art@ietf.org" 
>
Cc: OSPF WG List >, 
"i...@ietf.org" >, 
"draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload@ietf.org"
 
>
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11


> >Minor issues:

> >I understand the WG likes using the term "overload" for a link

> >being taken

> >out of service.  I think people will learn what we mean.  I do wish

> >we had

> >not chosen to misuse the words in this fashion.  This is much more a

> >graceful-link-close indication (or clsoe-pending indication) than

> >it is an

> >overload indication.

>

> I agree with this comment but I wasn’t sure we’d reach consensus on a

> better alternative. However, after some though and consideration of current

> OSPF router terminology, I’d propose we use the term “Pending-Shutdown”.

> Does anyone not agree that this is a more appropriate moniker for the TLV

> and state?

>

[Les:] I agree with Joel's comment. The use of the term "overload" is 
unfortunate.

But "pending-shutdown" isn’t appealing to me because - at least in most use 
cases - you aren't actually going to shutdown the link. What you are going to 
do is make a link the "link of last resort".

This seems a better choice.

That is not the use case - you are going to take the link down. It is not going 
to be the "link of last resort”, it is the currently the “link of last resort” 
and will imminently be taken down.




The suggestion from Shraddha that this term was borrowed from IS-IS isn't 
accurate. "overload" in IS-IS has a very different meaning - it indicates a 
node either has an incomplete LSDB or (a la RFC 
3277 )an incomplete forwarding plane.



The only use of "link overload" in IS-IS occurs in 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-07#section-3.6 and 
this was added recently to support the (very useful) TE use case which was 
defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11 . When 
this was done the term "link-overload" was cut and pasted from the OSPF draft. 
I think this should also be changed in the IS-IS draft.

Agreed.

Thanks,
Acee



   Les



> Thanks,

> Acee

> >

> >

> >

>

> ___

> OSPF mailing list

> o...@ietf.org

> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

[Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)]

> >Minor issues:

> >I understand the WG likes using the term "overload" for a link

> >being taken

> >out of service.  I think people will learn what we mean.  I do wish

> >we had

> >not chosen to misuse the words in this fashion.  This is much more a

> >graceful-link-close indication (or clsoe-pending indication) than

> >it is an

> >overload indication.

>

> I agree with this comment but I wasn’t sure we’d reach consensus on a

> better alternative. However, after some though and consideration of current

> OSPF router terminology, I’d propose we use the term “Pending-Shutdown”.

> Does anyone not agree that this is a more appropriate moniker for the TLV

> and state?

>

[Les:] I agree with Joel's comment. The use of the term "overload" is 
unfortunate.

But "pending-shutdown" isn’t appealing to me because - at least in most use 
cases - you aren't actually going to shutdown the link. What you are going to 
do is make a link the "link of last resort".

This seems a better choice.



The suggestion from Shraddha that this term was borrowed from IS-IS isn't 
accurate. "overload" in IS-IS has a very different meaning - it indicates a 
node either has an incomplete LSDB or (a la RFC 
3277 )an incomplete forwarding plane.



The only use of "link overload" in IS-IS occurs in 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-07#section-3.6 and 
this was added recently to support the (very useful) TE use case which was 
defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11 . When 
this was done the term "link-overload" was cut and pasted from the OSPF draft. 
I think this should also be changed in the IS-IS draft.



   Les



> Thanks,

> Acee

> >

> >

> >

>

> ___

> OSPF mailing list

> o...@ietf.org

> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

[Acee Lindem (acee)]

Hi Joel, 

On 1/4/18, 6:32 PM, "Joel Halpern"  wrote:

>Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>Review result: Ready
>
>I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
>like any other last call comments.
>
>For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
>.
>
>Document: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11
>Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>Review Date: 2018-01-04
>IETF LC End Date: 2018-01-16
>IESG Telechat date: 2018-01-25
>
>Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard
>
>Major issues:
>N/A; my concerns from earlier versions have been addressed.
>
>Minor issues:
>I understand the WG likes using the term "overload" for a link being
>taken
>out of service.  I think people will learn what we mean.  I do wish
>we had
>not chosen to misuse the words in this fashion.  This is much more a
>graceful-link-close indication (or clsoe-pending indication) than it
>is an
>overload indication.

I agree with this comment but I wasn’t sure we’d reach consensus on a
better alternative. However, after some though and consideration of
current OSPF router terminology, I’d propose we use the term
“Pending-Shutdown”. Does anyone not agree that this is a more appropriate
moniker for the TLV and state?

Thanks,
Acee 
>
>
>

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

[Joel Halpern]

Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Ready

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

.

Document: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2018-01-04
IETF LC End Date: 2018-01-16
IESG Telechat date: 2018-01-25

Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard

Major issues:
N/A; my concerns from earlier versions have been addressed.

Minor issues:
I understand the WG likes using the term "overload" for a link being taken
out of service.  I think people will learn what we mean.  I do wish we had
not chosen to misuse the words in this fashion.  This is much more a
graceful-link-close indication (or clsoe-pending indication) than it is an
overload indication.

Nits/editorial comments:


___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art