[Isis-wg] ISIS WG Closing (work to LSR)

As I expect you have seen, the charter for the Link-State Routing (lsr) WG has been approved and the lsr WG now exists. All subscribers to the isis-wg mailing list have been subscribed to the lsr mailing list. ISIS WG drafts that are already in the RFC Editor's queue will remain as being

Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions

rwise) > >iii) What is the algorithm - or is it "empty" > > - > > > > I’ll try to work with Les on the text to specify the interaction. > > > > Jeffrey > > > > *From:* Alia Atlas [mailto:akat...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wed

Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions

First, I greatly appreciate the rapid education I have gotten on why the different aspects of this are important. Let us explore some details on the plan for an 8-bit BART and an 8-bit BARM that are independent. Jeffrey, I really appreciate your bringing this option to the list. It simplifies

Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions

sily > supports both (1) and (2). > > my 2c, > Peter > > > > On 19/02/18 22:51 , Alia Atlas wrote: > > As the Sponsoring AD for draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-07 and > > draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions-12, I have been fo

Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions

either do I see a problem with option B) given > we are talking only 0/0 being in IGP RFC @ this point in time. thanks. tony > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 9:15 PM, Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I have one additional question for those with implementations or testing >

Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions

final deadline. Cheers, Alia > Thx, > > Ice. > > > Regards, > Alia > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com> wrote: > Les, > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 9:32 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) < > ginsb...@cisco.com>

Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions

disappointed in the level of discourse; the BIER-WG has traditionally worked very collegially with substantive technical points. Regards, Alia On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com> wrote: > Les, > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 9:32 PM, Les Ginsberg (gins

Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions

- It allows a clean implementation (as opposed to Option C which is a >bit more kludgy). Thanks to a sub-TLV defining what BAR field carries – a >BIER-specific algorithm defined in BIER specific registry (a registry that >should be BIER specific, regardless of IGP used), or something els

Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions

> underlay is really what ever information is needed to select the Table > (MT-ID) and Algorithm. An example of Algorithm work that is going on is > Flex-Algo. My preferred option is to align with what ever the IGPs are > using to identify the Algorithm. > > Option E: Change BAR i

Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions

parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp- > algorithm-types > > Thx, > > Ice. > > On 19 Feb 2018, at 13:51, Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As the Sponsoring AD for draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-07 and > draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions-12, I have been fol

Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04

Ice, The draft is in IETF Last Call. What is your technical objection to having it go forward as it is? Regards, Alia On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:13 PM, IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand) wrote: > Greg, > > I think there is a confusion here, there is no consensus to remove BAR! We >

Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Tony Przygienda 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

Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter

on their extensions to the LSR IGPs as applicable to LSR protocol operation and scale. LSR-WG should coordinate with other WGs as needed. = Regards, Alia On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com> wrote: > Andrew, > > > I like that improvement.

Re: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] Link-State Routing WG charter

sday, January 24, 2018 at 15:09 > *To: *Stewart Bryant <stewart.bry...@gmail.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" < > a...@cisco.com>, Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com> > *Cc: *OSPF List <o...@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org> > *Subject:

Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter

:* Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Les > Ginsberg (ginsberg) > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2018 2:33 PM > *To:* Stewart Bryant <stewart.bry...@gmail.com>; Acee Lindem (acee) < > a...@cisco.com>; Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com> > > *Cc:* OSPF List

Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter

ated list. > > I would have thought that "LSR can coordinate with CCAMP and BIER on their > extensions " should have been more directive. > > - Stewart > > > On 24/01/2018 17:18, Alia Atlas wrote: > > Here is the proposed charter for the LSR workin

[Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter

Here is the proposed charter for the LSR working group that will be created from the SPF and ISIS working groups. This is scheduled for internal review for the IESG telechat on February 8. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lsr/ The Link-State Routing (LSR) Working Group is chartered

[Isis-wg] early proposed charter for the Link-State Routing WG

I am working on the initial charter for the LSR WG, which will combine the OSPF and ISIS WGs. At this time, I do not see moving the fast-reroute work from RTGWG, but I am willing to hear opinions. In general, feedback on what areas should be the initial focus or specific concerns on scoping

Re: [Isis-wg] TLV conflict

t document. > > ??? > In the IANA section, it should refer to the values as allocated - not suggested or potential. >Les > > > > > > *From:* Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Alia > Atlas > *Sent:* Thursday, December 14, 2017 7:01 AM &g

Re: [Isis-wg] TLV conflict

Hi Harish, Please take a look at https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml#isis-tlv-codepoints-242 where it is clear that draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd has an early temporary registration for type 23. draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-02 should be

Re: [Isis-wg] early AD review of draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-05

Hi Tony, On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:10 PM, Antoni Przygienda wrote: > > > 2) Sec 5.1: This section has concern about restricting the advertisement > of BIER information in IS-IS for scalability - but it doesn't discuss at > all when a router would stop advertising the BIER