Re: [Lsr] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-15

[Julien Meuric]

  
  
Hi Les,

Indeed, this version resolves my initial comments.

Thank you.

Julien


Oct. 05, 2018 - ginsb...@cisco.com:


  
  
  
  
Bruno/Julien/Benjamin
–
 
V18
of the draft has been published. I believe this addresses
all outstanding comments.
 
Thanx
very much for your input.
 
   
Les
 
 

  

  From:
  bruno.decra...@orange.com
  
  
  Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2018 12:56 AM
  

  
   
  Les,
   
  Thanks
  for the proposed text.
  It’s
  crystal clear. It works for me.
   
  --Bruno
   
  

  
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]

Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 11:27 PM

  

 
(Hard
to follow Acee’s post – especially for entertainment
value)
 
Bruno
–
 
I
think that we do want some less awkward text. So I am
proposing to add the following into the Introduction:
 
“Label
  Imposition is the act of modifying and/or adding
  labels to the outgoing label stack associated with a
  packet.
This
  includes:
 
o
   replacing the label at the top of the label stack
  with a new label
o
   pushing one or more new  labels onto the label stack.
 
The
  number of labels imposed is then the sum of the labels
  which are replaced and the labels which are pushed.
See
  [RFC3031] for further details.”
 
The
BMI definition then becomes:
 
“Base
  MPLS Imposition MSD (BMI-MSD) signals the total number
  of MPLS
  
  labels which can be imposed, including all
  service/transport/special
  
  labels.”
 
Does
this work??
 
   
Les
 
 

  

  From:
  Acee Lindem (acee)
  
  Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 2:05 PM
  

  
   
  Hi Bruno, 
  
 

  
On Oct 3, 2018, at 10:07 AM, 
bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
  
   
  

  Hi
  Acee,


   


   


  

  
From: Acee
Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com] 
  

  
  
 
  
  
Hey
Bruno, Jeff, Les,
  
  
 
  
  
Have
we agreed on the precise definition of
“label imposition”?
  
  
Thanks
for asking.
  
  
Not
so far.
  
  
We
don’t necessarily need to agree on a
precision definition of “label imposition”.
In my latest email (a few hours ago), I
proposed to reuse the phrasing from RFC
3031, which does not use that term. If we
are fine with using RFC 3031 terms, that
would be fine for me.
  

Re: [Lsr] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-15

[bruno.decraene]

Les,

V18 addresses all my comments.

Thank you, Les, for the discussion and for reflecting the outcome in the draft.

--Bruno

From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 2:14 AM
To: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; Acee Lindem (acee); MEURIC Julien IMT/OLN; Benjamin 
Kaduk
Cc: Routing Directorate; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-...@ietf.org; 
rtg-...@ietf.org; Alvaro Retana; lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura; MEURIC Julien 
IMT/OLN
Subject: RE: [Lsr] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review: 
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-15

Bruno/Julien/Benjamin –

V18 of the draft has been published. I believe this addresses all outstanding 
comments.

Thanx very much for your input.

Les


From: bruno.decra...@orange.com 
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2018 12:56 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Acee Lindem (acee) 

Cc: Routing Directorate ; 
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-...@ietf.org; rtg-...@ietf.org; Alvaro Retana 
; lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura 
; MEURIC Julien IMT/OLN 
Subject: RE: [Lsr] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review: 
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-15

Les,

Thanks for the proposed text.
It’s crystal clear. It works for me.

--Bruno

From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 11:27 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee); DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN
Cc: Routing Directorate; 
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-...@ietf.org;
 rtg-...@ietf.org; Alvaro Retana; 
lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura; MEURIC Julien IMT/OLN
Subject: RE: [Lsr] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review: 
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-15

(Hard to follow Acee’s post – especially for entertainment value)

Bruno –

I think that we do want some less awkward text. So I am proposing to add the 
following into the Introduction:

“Label Imposition is the act of modifying and/or adding labels to the outgoing 
label stack associated with a packet.
This includes:

o  replacing the label at the top of the label stack with a new label
o  pushing one or more new  labels onto the label stack.

The number of labels imposed is then the sum of the labels which are replaced 
and the labels which are pushed.
See [RFC3031] for further details.”

The BMI definition then becomes:

“Base MPLS Imposition MSD (BMI-MSD) signals the total number of MPLS
   labels which can be imposed, including all service/transport/special
   labels.”

Does this work??

Les


From: Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 2:05 PM
To: Bruno Decraene mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>>
Cc: Routing Directorate mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>>; 
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-...@ietf.org;
 rtg-...@ietf.org; Alvaro Retana 
mailto:aretana.i...@gmail.com>>; 
lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura 
mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com>>; Les Ginsberg 
(ginsberg) mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>>; MEURIC Julien 
IMT/OLN mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com>>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review: 
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-15

Hi Bruno,

On Oct 3, 2018, at 10:07 AM, 
bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:

Hi Acee,


From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com]

Hey Bruno, Jeff, Les,

Have we agreed on the precise definition of “label imposition”?
Thanks for asking.
Not so far.
We don’t necessarily need to agree on a precision definition of “label 
imposition”. In my latest email (a few hours ago), I proposed to reuse the 
phrasing from RFC 3031, which does not use that term. If we are fine with using 
RFC 3031 terms, that would be fine for me.

Since the MSD type has always been defined in terms of “Imposition” in both the 
OSPF and IS-IS MSD drafts, I think it would be better to clarify any 
ambiguities the text Les quotes below.

Of course, we don’t want to get too bogged down in semantics as has happened in 
the past: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P8IYKxpqG0

Thanks,
Acee



Thanks,
--Bruno


Thanks,
Acee

From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
Bruno Decraene mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>>
Date: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 4:37 AM
To: Jeff Tantsura mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com>>
Cc: Routing Directorate mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>>, 
"draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-...@ietf.org"
 
mailto:draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-...@ietf.org>>,
 "rtg-...@ietf.org" 
mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>>, Alvaro Retana 
mailto:aretana.i...@gmail.com>>, 
"lsr@ietf.org" mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>, "Les 
Ginsberg (ginsberg)" mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>>, MEURIC 
Julien IMT/OLN mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com>>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review: 
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-15

Jeff,

From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2018 8:28 PM
To: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; Alvaro Retana; MEURIC Julien I