Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-isis-te-app-09

2020-01-15 Thread Alvaro Retana 
On January 15, 2020 at 3:48:31 PM, Les Ginsberg wrote:

Les:

Hi!

...
> 5. Deployment Considerations
> 6. Attribute Advertisements and Enablement
> 7. Interoperability, Backwards Compatibility and Migration
> Concerns
>
> Of these I think 5 and 7 could logically be combined and fall under the
> heading of "Deployment Considerations".
>
> Section 6 is discussing a particular aspect of the protocol extensions - what
> the advertisement of link attributes associated with a particular application
> says about the state of that application on that link. This isn't a
> deployment consideration.
>
> I therefore suggest that Section 6 remain as is but be placed BEFORE a new
> Deployment Considerations section which will have the combined content of the
> current Sections 5 and 7 - plus revisions based on your comments.
>
> Let me know if that makes sense to you.

Yes, that works for me.



> > [c] The OSPF abstract is more general, while this one provides more
> > specifics...
>
> [Les:] And which style do you prefer?


Most of the time I prefer the general approach.

In this case either works for me.  I would simply want to avoid
questions about what may look like different
scope/goals/functionality...

Thanks!

Alvaro.

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-isis-te-app-09

2020-01-15 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) 
Alvaro -

A few pointed questions as we work on the revisions.

> 
> (A) Deployment Considerations
> 
> This document contains what I would characterize as a "distributed"
> Deployment Considerations section through §5, §6 and §7.  There is a
> lot of content, but I still made some comments in-line about other
> important information.  Please consider consolidating all the
> deployment-related information in one place.  rfc5706 (specially §2)
> may be useful, please take a look.
> 
[Les:] This comment covers three sections:

5.  Deployment Considerations 
6.  Attribute Advertisements and Enablement 
7.  Interoperability, Backwards Compatibility and Migration
   Concerns

Of these I think 5 and 7 could logically be combined and fall under the heading 
of "Deployment Considerations".
Section 6 is discussing a particular aspect of the protocol extensions - what 
the advertisement of link attributes associated with a particular application 
says about the state of that application on that link. This isn't a deployment 
consideration.

I therefore suggest that Section 6 remain as is but be placed BEFORE a new
Deployment Considerations section which will have the combined content of the 
current Sections 5 and 7 - plus revisions based on your comments.

Let me know if that makes sense to you.

> 
> [c] The OSPF abstract is more general, while this one provides more
> specifics...

[Les:] And which style do you prefer?

 Les
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv-01.txt

2020-01-15 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) 
Folks -

Just a refresh as the draft was about to expire.

   Les


> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr  On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org
> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 7:45 AM
> To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv-01.txt
> 
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.
> 
> Title   : Invalid TLV Handling in IS-IS
> Authors : Les Ginsberg
>   Paul Wells
>   Tony Li
>   Tony Przygienda
>   Shraddha Hegde
>   Filename: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv-01.txt
>   Pages   : 8
>   Date: 2020-01-15
> 
> Abstract:
>Key to the extensibility of the Intermediate System to Intermediate
>System (IS-IS) protocol has been the handling of unsupported and/or
>invalid Type/Length/Value (TLV) tuples.  Although there are explicit
>statements in existing specifications, deployment experience has
>shown that there are inconsistencies in the behavior when a TLV which
>is disallowed in a particular Protocol Data Unit (PDU) is received.
> 
>This document discusses such cases and makes the correct behavior
>explicit in order to insure that interoperability is maximized.
> 
>This document when approved updates RFC3563, RFC5305, RFC6232, and
>RFC6233.
> 
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv/
> 
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv-01
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv-01
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv-01
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> ___
> 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] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv-01.txt

2020-01-15 Thread internet-drafts 


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.

Title   : Invalid TLV Handling in IS-IS
Authors : Les Ginsberg
  Paul Wells
  Tony Li
  Tony Przygienda
  Shraddha Hegde
Filename: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv-01.txt
Pages   : 8
Date: 2020-01-15

Abstract:
   Key to the extensibility of the Intermediate System to Intermediate
   System (IS-IS) protocol has been the handling of unsupported and/or
   invalid Type/Length/Value (TLV) tuples.  Although there are explicit
   statements in existing specifications, deployment experience has
   shown that there are inconsistencies in the behavior when a TLV which
   is disallowed in a particular Protocol Data Unit (PDU) is received.

   This document discusses such cases and makes the correct behavior
   explicit in order to insure that interoperability is maximized.

   This document when approved updates RFC3563, RFC5305, RFC6232, and
   RFC6233.



The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv-01
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv-01


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.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] Comments on draft-li-ospf-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-07.txt

2020-01-15 Thread Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) 
Hi Acee,

Thanks for your review, comments and suggestions. We’ve incorporated them and 
posted an update for this draft.

Note that as requested in a separate email thread, the draft has been renamed 
so it is associated with the LSR WG instead of the old OSPF one : 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions/

This draft also has editorial changes to align with the latest version of the 
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming and is functionally equivalent to 
the draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions.

The authors believe this version is ready for WG adoption as requested 
previously.

Thanks,
Ketan (on behalf of co-authors)

From: Lizhenbin 
Sent: 16 December 2019 20:31
To: Acee Lindem (acee) ; 
draft-li-ospf-ospfv3-srv6-extensi...@ietf.org
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Comments on draft-li-ospf-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-07.txt

Hi Acee,
Thanks very much for your help to refine the draft. You suggestion also makes 
sense. We will update accordingly.

Best Regards,
Robin



From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2019 5:44 AM
To: 
draft-li-ospf-ospfv3-srv6-extensi...@ietf.org
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Comments on draft-li-ospf-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-07.txt

Hi Robin, et al,
One thing I’d like to see is incorporation of the text for the MSD types in the 
draft. It is less than one and a half pages and it doesn’t make sense to 
reference the IS-IS draft. I’ve also attached my editorial comments.

Thanks,
Acee
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-04.txt

2020-01-15 Thread Peter Psenak 

Hi LSR Chairs,

as requested in Singapore, I have added the "Implementation Status" 
section to the draft. The new version also includes bunch of editorial 
changes.


I would like to request a WG last call for this document.

thanks,
Peter


On 15/01/2020 14:52, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.

 Title   : IS-IS Extension to Support Segment Routing over IPv6 
Dataplane
 Authors : Peter Psenak
   Clarence Filsfils
   Ahmed Bashandy
   Bruno Decraene
   Zhibo Hu
Filename: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-04.txt
Pages   : 25
Date: 2020-01-15

Abstract:
Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end
paths by encoding paths as sequences of topological sub-paths, called
"segments".  Segment routing architecture can be implemented over an
MPLS data plane as well as an IPv6 data plane.  This draft describes
the IS-IS extensions required to support Segment Routing over an IPv6
data plane.



The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-04
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-04

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-04


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.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

___
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] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-04.txt

2020-01-15 Thread internet-drafts 


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.

Title   : IS-IS Extension to Support Segment Routing over IPv6 
Dataplane
Authors : Peter Psenak
  Clarence Filsfils
  Ahmed Bashandy
  Bruno Decraene
  Zhibo Hu
Filename: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-04.txt
Pages   : 25
Date: 2020-01-15

Abstract:
   Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end
   paths by encoding paths as sequences of topological sub-paths, called
   "segments".  Segment routing architecture can be implemented over an
   MPLS data plane as well as an IPv6 data plane.  This draft describes
   the IS-IS extensions required to support Segment Routing over an IPv6
   data plane.



The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-04
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-04

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-04


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.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr