[Lsr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-10.txt

FYI: > Begin forwarded message: > > From: internet-dra...@ietf.org > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-10.txt > Date: December 7, 2023 at 6:00:28 PM PST > To: "Gyan S. Mishra" , "Gyan Mishra" > , "Sarah Chen" , "Tony Li" > , "Vivek Ilangovan" > > A new

[Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-10.txt

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-10.txt is now available. It is a work item of the Link State Routing (LSR) WG of the IETF. Title: Area Proxy for IS-IS Authors: Tony Li Sarah Chen Vivek Ilangovan Gyan S. Mishra Name:

Re: [Lsr] AD review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-09

Hi John, >>> @@ -302,14 +315,23 @@ >>> value of the SRGB advertised by all Inside Nodes MUST start at the >>> same value. The range advertised for the area will be the minimum of >>> all Inside Nodes. >>> ++--- >>> +jgs: shouldn't the document say something about what to do if >>> +either

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023)

Gyan> If we made the sending of MP TLV a MUST it would provide the similar type of backwards compatibility as BIG TLV with the capability TLV. Advantage of doing it inside the protocol is that we eliminate configuration of enable/disable state default variations and are able to ensue

Re: [Lsr] Bug in RFC 8667 definition of SID/Index/Label

Hi Acee, > On Dec 7, 2023, at 3:44 PM, Acee Lindem wrote: > > We’ll probably never BIS these RFCs but I would agree that it would be good > for one of the RFC authors to provide a clearer definition of the > relationship between the L flag, V flag, TLV length, and TLV values (label, > index,

[Lsr] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8667 (7722)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8667, "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing". -- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7722 -- Type: Editorial Reported by: John

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023)

Les *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com * *M 301 502-1347* On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 1:07 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > Huaimo – > > > > There are some things on which people can legitimately have different >

Re: [Lsr] AD review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-09

Hi Tony, Thanks for your prompt reply. I can live with most of that, just a few follow-ups below. > On Dec 7, 2023, at 3:45 PM, Tony Li wrote: > > Hi John, > > Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I’m incorporating most of > them Cool. Looking forward to reviewing version 10. >

Re: [Lsr] Bug in RFC 8667 definition of SID/Index/Label

John - > OLD: > 2.1.1.1. V-Flag and L-Flag > > NEW: > 2.1.1.1. V-Flag, L-Flag, and the SID/Index/Label Field > Seems reasonable to me. > Absent further discussion, I'll plan to open an editorial erratum with that > proposal; in light of the alleged waves, I will get it done by end of week,

Re: [Lsr] Bug in RFC 8667 definition of SID/Index/Label

Hi Les, > On Dec 7, 2023, at 4:03 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > wrote: > > Let's be careful here. Certainly. I don't think we've been proceeding recklessly so far, have we? > SR-MPLS has been deployed for several years, there are multiple > implementations which have demonstrated

Re: [Lsr] Bug in RFC 8667 definition of SID/Index/Label

Les, > On Dec 7, 2023, at 16:03, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > > Folks - > > Let's be careful here. > SR-MPLS has been deployed for several years, there are multiple > implementations which have demonstrated interoperability, and clearly the > correct encoding of the SID is a key

Re: [Lsr] Bug in RFC 8667 definition of SID/Index/Label

Folks - Let's be careful here. SR-MPLS has been deployed for several years, there are multiple implementations which have demonstrated interoperability, and clearly the correct encoding of the SID is a key element of that interoperability. As a co-author, I am happy to listen to relevant

Re: [Lsr] AD review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-09

Hi John, Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I’m incorporating most of them and only responding to ones that warrant further discussion. > ++--- > +jgs: I suggested changing 'should' to 'will' for two reasons. First, > +and less important, there's the annoying risk of conflation with

Re: [Lsr] Bug in RFC 8667 definition of SID/Index/Label

Hi John, > On Dec 7, 2023, at 12:22, John Scudder > wrote: > > Hi Hannes, > >> On Dec 7, 2023, at 4:38 AM, Hannes Gredler >> wrote: >> >> We have used similar textblocks for the OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 SR extensions and >> I am not aware >> of any questions from implementators around

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023)

Huaimo – There are some things on which people can legitimately have different opinions – the meaning of backwards compatibility is not one of them. Your position seems to be that so long as I introduce a capability advertisement that controls whether a new advertisement is used when received

Re: [Lsr] Bug in RFC 8667 definition of SID/Index/Label

Hi Hannes, > On Dec 7, 2023, at 4:38 AM, Hannes Gredler > wrote: > > We have used similar textblocks for the OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 SR extensions and I > am not aware > of any questions from implementators around ambiguity. Thanks for the pointer, I’ll take a look at those, too. > IMO there is

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023)

Huaimo, first, I fail to see how 8202 has anything to do with this discussion. Did you try to implement and deploy 5311 in real networks and seen the operational impact ? and are you suggesting that we need to have that deployed as precondition for big-tlv idea ? 'nuff said ... -- tony On Thu,

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023)

Hi Tony, My responses are inline below with [HC]. Best Regards, Huaimo practically speaking "backwards compatibility" here is restricted by the fact that 1) we have in most largest networks de facto mp-tlv deployed and relied on for operations implemented by all major vendors. 2) we

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023)

Hi Les, My responses are inline below with [HC]. Best Regards, Huaimo Folks – The term “backwards compatibility” is getting abused here. What does “backwards compatibility” mean in the context of a routing protocol like IS-IS? It means that protocol extensions can be advertised and

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023)

what I read is the suggestion to publish something where everything one the planet is becoming non-conformant for the fun of doing something new and forcing people to do something new with my assumption the author of the email won’t be the one implementing or deploying it. Moreover, the new

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023)

Tony Przygienda writes: On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 7:52 AM Gyan Mishra wrote: ...     Gyan> What Bruno is trying to provide I think strengthens the draft with the MUST normative language for enable/disable configuration controls.  As this is pre standard implementation if

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023)

Hi authors, I’ve read both the draft and the recent discussion on the list. IMO Bruno’s concern is reasonable. As MP-TLV is not the default behavior for all TLVs specified in existing RFCs, operator has to be careful when enabling the MP-TLV behavior for existing TLVs, especially for TLVs

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023)

On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 7:52 AM Gyan Mishra wrote: > ... > Gyan> What Bruno is trying to provide I think strengthens the draft > with the MUST normative language for enable/disable configuration > controls. As this is pre standard implementation if the devices go out of > compliance

Re: [Lsr] Bug in RFC 8667 definition of SID/Index/Label

Hi John, Section 2.1 defines also the bits to be used in the flags field: where: [ ... ] V-Flag: Value Flag. If set, then the Prefix-SID carries a value (instead of an index). By default, the flag is UNSET. L-Flag: Local Flag. If set, then the value/index carried by the Prefix-SID has local