Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt
Uma – https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00#appendix-A documents the interoperability issue and the changes from RFC 7810. There are no other changes/issues. If you feel this section is not clear please ask a pointed question. Right now I have no idea what you are asking about. Les From: Uma Chunduri Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 3:28 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Jeff Tantsura ; Acee Lindem (acee) ; Tony Li Cc: lsr@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt Hi Les, > are so pointed and directly affect the probability of interoperable > implementations. Sure. Could you give more info (if available) on any other information of the interoperability/deployment apart from this obvious mismatch? For example – Announcement periodicity as discussed in Section 7 or any other deployment aspect? -- Uma C. From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 2:18 PM To: Jeff Tantsura mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com>>; Acee Lindem (acee) mailto:a...@cisco.com>>; Tony Li mailto:tony...@tony.li>> Cc: lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt Fine with me. More important, I would like to fast track this bis document since the changes are so pointed and directly affect the probability of interoperable implementations. How quickly can we move to WG status? Can we do that even before the name change – so I can issue “ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis” ?? Les From: Jeff Tantsura mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com>> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 1:58 PM To: Acee Lindem (acee) mailto:a...@cisco.com>>; Tony Li mailto:tony...@tony.li>>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> Cc: lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt +1 I’d think the below would work: lsr for #2 lsr-ospf(ospfv3) / lsr-isis for #1 Cheers, Jeff From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" mailto:a...@cisco.com>> Date: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 13:27 To: Tony Li mailto:tony...@tony.li>>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> Cc: "lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>" mailto:lsr@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt I think the WG name should be in the expected place in the file name. I seem to remember some drafts with -bgp- rather than -idr- that flew under the radar for a while. Thanks, Acee From: Tony Li mailto:tony...@tony.li>> Date: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 4:03 PM To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> Cc: Acee Lindem mailto:a...@cisco.com>>, "lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>" mailto:lsr@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt I don’t see the big deal in having the WG name in the draft title, even for category 1 documents. It’s only the name of the draft and the fact that it is protocol specific doesn’t really need to be called out at that level. People who read the document will certainly figure it out. Tony On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:39 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> wrote: Well...this raises a topic on which I would like to have feedback from the WG. Combining IS-IS/OSPF into one working group is fine - no argument there. But, we now may be producing two classes of documents: 1)Documents which are specific to a protocol (IS-IS or OSPFv2 or OSPFv3) 2)Documents which cover 2 or more protocols draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt is Category #1 - and there is NO CHANCE this document will EVER cover OSPF - since OSPF already has RFC 7471 and this bis document is a correction to the IS-IS specific RFC7810. Calling it "-lsr-" to me is simply confusing as it in no way indicates that it is IS-IS specific. I suggest that any document which falls into Category 1 should continue to follow the traditional protocol specific naming. If this somehow violates some IETF rule then I suppose we could use "-lsr-isis-". (somewhat verbose) For Category 2 documents "-lsr-" certainly makes sense. Comments?? Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Acee Lindem (acee) > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 7:45 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>>; > lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis- > rfc7810bis-00.txt > > Hi Les, > > Can you resubmit as draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc7810bis-00.txt? Also, please add a > "Changes from RFC 7810"
Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt
Hi Les, > are so pointed and directly affect the probability of interoperable > implementations. Sure. Could you give more info (if available) on any other information of the interoperability/deployment apart from this obvious mismatch? For example – Announcement periodicity as discussed in Section 7 or any other deployment aspect? -- Uma C. From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 2:18 PM To: Jeff Tantsura ; Acee Lindem (acee) ; Tony Li Cc: lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt Fine with me. More important, I would like to fast track this bis document since the changes are so pointed and directly affect the probability of interoperable implementations. How quickly can we move to WG status? Can we do that even before the name change – so I can issue “ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis” ?? Les From: Jeff Tantsura mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com>> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 1:58 PM To: Acee Lindem (acee) mailto:a...@cisco.com>>; Tony Li mailto:tony...@tony.li>>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> Cc: lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt +1 I’d think the below would work: lsr for #2 lsr-ospf(ospfv3) / lsr-isis for #1 Cheers, Jeff From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" mailto:a...@cisco.com>> Date: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 13:27 To: Tony Li mailto:tony...@tony.li>>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> Cc: "lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>" mailto:lsr@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt I think the WG name should be in the expected place in the file name. I seem to remember some drafts with -bgp- rather than -idr- that flew under the radar for a while. Thanks, Acee From: Tony Li mailto:tony...@tony.li>> Date: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 4:03 PM To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> Cc: Acee Lindem mailto:a...@cisco.com>>, "lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>" mailto:lsr@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt I don’t see the big deal in having the WG name in the draft title, even for category 1 documents. It’s only the name of the draft and the fact that it is protocol specific doesn’t really need to be called out at that level. People who read the document will certainly figure it out. Tony On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:39 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> wrote: Well...this raises a topic on which I would like to have feedback from the WG. Combining IS-IS/OSPF into one working group is fine - no argument there. But, we now may be producing two classes of documents: 1)Documents which are specific to a protocol (IS-IS or OSPFv2 or OSPFv3) 2)Documents which cover 2 or more protocols draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt is Category #1 - and there is NO CHANCE this document will EVER cover OSPF - since OSPF already has RFC 7471 and this bis document is a correction to the IS-IS specific RFC7810. Calling it "-lsr-" to me is simply confusing as it in no way indicates that it is IS-IS specific. I suggest that any document which falls into Category 1 should continue to follow the traditional protocol specific naming. If this somehow violates some IETF rule then I suppose we could use "-lsr-isis-". (somewhat verbose) For Category 2 documents "-lsr-" certainly makes sense. Comments?? Les > -Original Message----- > From: Acee Lindem (acee) > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 7:45 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>>; > lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis- > rfc7810bis-00.txt > > Hi Les, > > Can you resubmit as draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc7810bis-00.txt? Also, please add a > "Changes from RFC 7810" section to the "Introduction". I see you have added > RFC8174 to the "Requirements Language" section already. > > I think we should accept this as an LSR Working Group document - does > anyone disagree? > > Thanks, > Acee > > On 3/30/18, 6:39 PM, "Lsr on behalf of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" boun...@ietf.org<mailto:boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of > ginsb...@cisco.com<mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> wrote: > > Folks - > > A bis version of RFC 7810 has been submitted to address the issue reported > in Errata ID: 5293 https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7810 > > Given that ther
Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt
Submitted. Les > -Original Message- > From: Acee Lindem (acee) > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 10:42 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis- > rfc7810bis-00.txt > > Hi Les, > > We've converged on draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt. Once updated, > I'll immediately start a short WG adoption poll on this draft. > > Thanks, > Acee > > On 4/3/18, 10:44 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)" boun...@ietf.org on behalf of a...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Hi Les, > > Can you resubmit as draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc7810bis-00.txt? Also, please > add a > "Changes from RFC 7810" section to the "Introduction". I see you have added > RFC8174 to the "Requirements Language" section already. > > I think we should accept this as an LSR Working Group document - does > anyone disagree? > > Thanks, > Acee > > On 3/30/18, 6:39 PM, "Lsr on behalf of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" boun...@ietf.org on behalf of ginsb...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Folks - > > A bis version of RFC 7810 has been submitted to address the issue > reported in Errata ID: 5293 https://www.rfc- > editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7810 > > Given that there exist implementations which have interpreted the > ambiguous encoding of some sub-TLVs in different/non-interoperable ways > it was felt that a bis version of the RFC was justified. > Please see the Appendix of the draft for a discussion of the changes > from > RFC 7810 and the reasons why. > >Les > > > -Original Message- > From: internet-dra...@ietf.org > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 3:33 PM > To: Qin Wu ; David Ward (wardd) > ; Spencer Giacolone ; > Spencer Giacalone ; John Drake > ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; David > Ward (wardd) ; Stefano Previdi > Subject: New Version Notification for > draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt > has been successfully submitted by Les Ginsberg and posted to the IETF > repository. > > Name: draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis > Revision: 00 > Title:IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions > Document date:2018-03-30 > Group:Individual Submission > Pages:19 > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ginsberg-isis- > rfc7810bis-00.txt > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ginsberg-isis- > rfc7810bis/ > Htmlized: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00 > Htmlized: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ginsberg-isis- > rfc7810bis > > > Abstract: >In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial >information networks (e.g., stock market data providers), network- >performance criteria (e.g., latency) are becoming as critical to >data-path selection as other metrics. > >This document describes extensions to IS-IS Traffic Engineering >Extensions (RFC 5305) such that network-performance information can >be distributed and collected in a scalable fashion. The > information >distributed using IS-IS TE Metric Extensions can then be used to > make >path-selection decisions based on network performance. > >Note that this document only covers the mechanisms with which >network-performance information is distributed. The mechanisms for >measuring network performance or acting on that information, once >distributed, are outside the scope of this document. > >This document obsoletes RFC 7810. > > > > > > 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. > > The IETF Secretariat > > ___ > 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 > --- Begin Message --- A new version of I-D, draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt has been successfully submitted by
Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt
Hi Les, We've converged on draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt. Once updated, I'll immediately start a short WG adoption poll on this draft. Thanks, Acee On 4/3/18, 10:44 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote: Hi Les, Can you resubmit as draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc7810bis-00.txt? Also, please add a "Changes from RFC 7810" section to the "Introduction". I see you have added RFC8174 to the "Requirements Language" section already. I think we should accept this as an LSR Working Group document - does anyone disagree? Thanks, Acee On 3/30/18, 6:39 PM, "Lsr on behalf of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" wrote: Folks - A bis version of RFC 7810 has been submitted to address the issue reported in Errata ID: 5293 https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7810 Given that there exist implementations which have interpreted the ambiguous encoding of some sub-TLVs in different/non-interoperable ways it was felt that a bis version of the RFC was justified. Please see the Appendix of the draft for a discussion of the changes from RFC 7810 and the reasons why. Les -Original Message- From: internet-dra...@ietf.org Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 3:33 PM To: Qin Wu ; David Ward (wardd) ; Spencer Giacolone ; Spencer Giacalone ; John Drake ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; David Ward (wardd) ; Stefano Previdi Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt A new version of I-D, draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Les Ginsberg and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis Revision: 00 Title: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions Document date: 2018-03-30 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 19 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00 Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis Abstract: In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial information networks (e.g., stock market data providers), network- performance criteria (e.g., latency) are becoming as critical to data-path selection as other metrics. This document describes extensions to IS-IS Traffic Engineering Extensions (RFC 5305) such that network-performance information can be distributed and collected in a scalable fashion. The information distributed using IS-IS TE Metric Extensions can then be used to make path-selection decisions based on network performance. Note that this document only covers the mechanisms with which network-performance information is distributed. The mechanisms for measuring network performance or acting on that information, once distributed, are outside the scope of this document. This document obsoletes RFC 7810. 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. The IETF Secretariat ___ 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 mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt
Sold!
Cheers,
Jeff
On 4/6/18, 14:45, "Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote:
Good point - we will expand to:
-lsr-ospf- - OSPF Specific
drafts pertaining to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3
-lsr-ospfv2- - OSPFv2 only Specific
drafts
-lsr-ospfv3- - OSPFv3 only Specific
drafts
-lsr-isis-- IS-IS Specific
drafts
-lsr- - Drafts covering
both protocols.
I'd hope the OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 specific drafts are few and far between but
I can still see reasons to have both (e.g., OSPFv2 will never support multiple
address familes).
Thanks,
Acee
On 4/6/18, 5:29 PM, "Jeff Tantsura" wrote:
Acee,
What about ospfv2 vs ospfv3 specifics?
We keep it as before - eg “ospf” covers either or ospfv2, “ospfv3” is
for ospfv3 only?
Regards,
Jeff
> On Apr 6, 2018, at 12:25, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>
> I'm fine with the proposed naming conventions for new drafts.
Formally:
>
>-lsr-ospf- - OSPF Specific
drafts
>-lsr-isis- - IS-IS Specific
drafts
>-lsr- - Drafts
covering both protocols.
>
> Anyone strongly disagree?
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
>
> On 4/6/18, 1:57 PM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
wrote:
>
>Tom -
>
>Thanx for the support.
>
>It occurs to me that your filter still needs adjustment however -
since there will be cases when a common document is used for all protocols -
and in such a case you can only expect "-lsr-" to be in the title.
>
>My point is there should be a straightforward way to identify the
scope of the content from the name - just using "-lsr-" for all documents is
very sub-optimal - and the fix for this is very easy.
>
> Les
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: t.petch
>> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 3:43 AM
>> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Christian Hopps
>>
>> Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Acee Lindem (acee)
>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-ginsberg-isis-
>> rfc7810bis-00.txt
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
>> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 5:26 PM
>>
>>> Chris -
>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: Christian Hopps
>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 7:32 AM
>>>>
>>>> I think that the only time we should include the protocol (in
>> addition to '-lsr-')
>>>> is if we have split documents (for whatever reason) on the same
>> solution.
>>>> We have an example of this actually:
>>>>
>>>>draft-ietf--segment-routing-msd-09
>>>>draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-09
>>>>
>>>> Going forward we either combine these types of documents into a
>> single
>>>> document (discussion started @101) so "-lsr-" is appropriate, or if
>> there's
>>>> some reason not to merge them then we have 2 documents that need
>> the
>>>> protocol identifier to disambiguate.
>>>>
>>>> In this case there's no ambiguity so I don't see the need of adding
>> an extra "-
>>>> isis-".
>>> [Les:] RFC 7810 is specific.
>>> There is a separate document for equivalent OSPF functionality (RFC
>> 7471).
>>>
>>> My point is - the reader should not have to go through the body of
the
>> document to find out that the document is specific to a particular
protocol.
>> The document name (which is preserved in the text even when it
becomes
>> an RFC) should make that clear.
>>>
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> From a purely personal point of view, I track OSPF but have no
interest in the
>> other protocol (mention of which causes my ISP to blackhole my
e-mail). I
&
Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt
Good point - we will expand to: -lsr-ospf- - OSPF Specific drafts pertaining to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 -lsr-ospfv2- - OSPFv2 only Specific drafts -lsr-ospfv3- - OSPFv3 only Specific drafts -lsr-isis-- IS-IS Specific drafts -lsr- - Drafts covering both protocols. I'd hope the OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 specific drafts are few and far between but I can still see reasons to have both (e.g., OSPFv2 will never support multiple address familes). Thanks, Acee On 4/6/18, 5:29 PM, "Jeff Tantsura" wrote: Acee, What about ospfv2 vs ospfv3 specifics? We keep it as before - eg “ospf” covers either or ospfv2, “ospfv3” is for ospfv3 only? Regards, Jeff > On Apr 6, 2018, at 12:25, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > I'm fine with the proposed naming conventions for new drafts. Formally: > >-lsr-ospf- - OSPF Specific drafts >-lsr-isis- - IS-IS Specific drafts >-lsr- - Drafts covering both protocols. > > Anyone strongly disagree? > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > > On 4/6/18, 1:57 PM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" wrote: > >Tom - > >Thanx for the support. > >It occurs to me that your filter still needs adjustment however - since there will be cases when a common document is used for all protocols - and in such a case you can only expect "-lsr-" to be in the title. > >My point is there should be a straightforward way to identify the scope of the content from the name - just using "-lsr-" for all documents is very sub-optimal - and the fix for this is very easy. > > Les > > >> -Original Message- >> From: t.petch >> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 3:43 AM >> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Christian Hopps >> >> Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Acee Lindem (acee) >> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis- >> rfc7810bis-00.txt >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" >> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 5:26 PM >> >>> Chris - >>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: Christian Hopps >>>> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 7:32 AM >>>> >>>> I think that the only time we should include the protocol (in >> addition to '-lsr-') >>>> is if we have split documents (for whatever reason) on the same >> solution. >>>> We have an example of this actually: >>>> >>>>draft-ietf--segment-routing-msd-09 >>>>draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-09 >>>> >>>> Going forward we either combine these types of documents into a >> single >>>> document (discussion started @101) so "-lsr-" is appropriate, or if >> there's >>>> some reason not to merge them then we have 2 documents that need >> the >>>> protocol identifier to disambiguate. >>>> >>>> In this case there's no ambiguity so I don't see the need of adding >> an extra "- >>>> isis-". >>> [Les:] RFC 7810 is specific. >>> There is a separate document for equivalent OSPF functionality (RFC >> 7471). >>> >>> My point is - the reader should not have to go through the body of the >> document to find out that the document is specific to a particular protocol. >> The document name (which is preserved in the text even when it becomes >> an RFC) should make that clear. >>> >> >> I agree. >> >> From a purely personal point of view, I track OSPF but have no interest in the >> other protocol (mention of which causes my ISP to blackhole my e-mail). I >> filter the I-D announce list and will see notification of any I-D with OSPF in the >> title - any without OSPF in the title will pass under the radar. >> >> Tom Petch >> >>> Les >>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Chris. >>>> >>>> Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) writes: >>>> >>>>> Well...this raises a topic on which I would like to have feedback >> from the >>>> WG. >>>>> >>>>> Combining /OSPF into one working group is fine - no argument >> there. >>>>> But, we now may be producing two classes of documents: >>>>> > > > > ___ > 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
Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt
Acee, What about ospfv2 vs ospfv3 specifics? We keep it as before - eg “ospf” covers either or ospfv2, “ospfv3” is for ospfv3 only? Regards, Jeff > On Apr 6, 2018, at 12:25, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > I'm fine with the proposed naming conventions for new drafts. Formally: > >-lsr-ospf- - OSPF Specific drafts >-lsr-isis- - IS-IS Specific drafts >-lsr- - Drafts covering both > protocols. > > Anyone strongly disagree? > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > > On 4/6/18, 1:57 PM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" wrote: > >Tom - > >Thanx for the support. > >It occurs to me that your filter still needs adjustment however - since > there will be cases when a common document is used for all protocols - and in > such a case you can only expect "-lsr-" to be in the title. > >My point is there should be a straightforward way to identify the scope of > the content from the name - just using "-lsr-" for all documents is very > sub-optimal - and the fix for this is very easy. > > Les > > >> -Original Message- >> From: t.petch >> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 3:43 AM >> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Christian Hopps >> >> Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Acee Lindem (acee) >> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis- >> rfc7810bis-00.txt >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" >> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 5:26 PM >> >>> Chris - >>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: Christian Hopps >>>> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 7:32 AM >>>> >>>> I think that the only time we should include the protocol (in >> addition to '-lsr-') >>>> is if we have split documents (for whatever reason) on the same >> solution. >>>> We have an example of this actually: >>>> >>>>draft-ietf--segment-routing-msd-09 >>>>draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-09 >>>> >>>> Going forward we either combine these types of documents into a >> single >>>> document (discussion started @101) so "-lsr-" is appropriate, or if >> there's >>>> some reason not to merge them then we have 2 documents that need >> the >>>> protocol identifier to disambiguate. >>>> >>>> In this case there's no ambiguity so I don't see the need of adding >> an extra "- >>>> isis-". >>> [Les:] RFC 7810 is specific. >>> There is a separate document for equivalent OSPF functionality (RFC >> 7471). >>> >>> My point is - the reader should not have to go through the body of the >> document to find out that the document is specific to a particular protocol. >> The document name (which is preserved in the text even when it becomes >> an RFC) should make that clear. >>> >> >> I agree. >> >> From a purely personal point of view, I track OSPF but have no interest in >> the >> other protocol (mention of which causes my ISP to blackhole my e-mail). I >> filter the I-D announce list and will see notification of any I-D with OSPF >> in the >> title - any without OSPF in the title will pass under the radar. >> >> Tom Petch >> >>> Les >>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Chris. >>>> >>>> Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) writes: >>>> >>>>> Well...this raises a topic on which I would like to have feedback >> from the >>>> WG. >>>>> >>>>> Combining /OSPF into one working group is fine - no argument >> there. >>>>> But, we now may be producing two classes of documents: >>>>> > > > > ___ > 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
Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt
+1 Regards, Jeff > On Apr 6, 2018, at 12:25, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > I'm fine with the proposed naming conventions for new drafts. Formally: > >-lsr-ospf- - OSPF Specific drafts >-lsr-isis- - IS-IS Specific drafts >-lsr- - Drafts covering both > protocols. > > Anyone strongly disagree? > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > > On 4/6/18, 1:57 PM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" wrote: > >Tom - > >Thanx for the support. > >It occurs to me that your filter still needs adjustment however - since > there will be cases when a common document is used for all protocols - and in > such a case you can only expect "-lsr-" to be in the title. > >My point is there should be a straightforward way to identify the scope of > the content from the name - just using "-lsr-" for all documents is very > sub-optimal - and the fix for this is very easy. > > Les > > >> -Original Message- >> From: t.petch >> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 3:43 AM >> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Christian Hopps >> >> Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Acee Lindem (acee) >> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis- >> rfc7810bis-00.txt >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" >> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 5:26 PM >> >>> Chris - >>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: Christian Hopps >>>> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 7:32 AM >>>> >>>> I think that the only time we should include the protocol (in >> addition to '-lsr-') >>>> is if we have split documents (for whatever reason) on the same >> solution. >>>> We have an example of this actually: >>>> >>>>draft-ietf--segment-routing-msd-09 >>>>draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-09 >>>> >>>> Going forward we either combine these types of documents into a >> single >>>> document (discussion started @101) so "-lsr-" is appropriate, or if >> there's >>>> some reason not to merge them then we have 2 documents that need >> the >>>> protocol identifier to disambiguate. >>>> >>>> In this case there's no ambiguity so I don't see the need of adding >> an extra "- >>>> isis-". >>> [Les:] RFC 7810 is specific. >>> There is a separate document for equivalent OSPF functionality (RFC >> 7471). >>> >>> My point is - the reader should not have to go through the body of the >> document to find out that the document is specific to a particular protocol. >> The document name (which is preserved in the text even when it becomes >> an RFC) should make that clear. >>> >> >> I agree. >> >> From a purely personal point of view, I track OSPF but have no interest in >> the >> other protocol (mention of which causes my ISP to blackhole my e-mail). I >> filter the I-D announce list and will see notification of any I-D with OSPF >> in the >> title - any without OSPF in the title will pass under the radar. >> >> Tom Petch >> >>> Les >>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Chris. >>>> >>>> Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) writes: >>>> >>>>> Well...this raises a topic on which I would like to have feedback >> from the >>>> WG. >>>>> >>>>> Combining /OSPF into one working group is fine - no argument >> there. >>>>> But, we now may be producing two classes of documents: >>>>> > > > > ___ > 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
Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt
I'm fine with the proposed naming conventions for new drafts. Formally:
-lsr-ospf- - OSPF Specific drafts
-lsr-isis- - IS-IS Specific drafts
-lsr- - Drafts covering both
protocols.
Anyone strongly disagree?
Thanks,
Acee
On 4/6/18, 1:57 PM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" wrote:
Tom -
Thanx for the support.
It occurs to me that your filter still needs adjustment however - since
there will be cases when a common document is used for all protocols - and in
such a case you can only expect "-lsr-" to be in the title.
My point is there should be a straightforward way to identify the scope of
the content from the name - just using "-lsr-" for all documents is very
sub-optimal - and the fix for this is very easy.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: t.petch
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 3:43 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Christian Hopps
>
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Acee Lindem (acee)
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-
> rfc7810bis-00.txt
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 5:26 PM
>
> > Chris -
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Christian Hopps
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 7:32 AM
> > >
> > > I think that the only time we should include the protocol (in
> addition to '-lsr-')
> > > is if we have split documents (for whatever reason) on the same
> solution.
> > > We have an example of this actually:
> > >
> > > draft-ietf--segment-routing-msd-09
> > > draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-09
> > >
> > > Going forward we either combine these types of documents into a
> single
> > > document (discussion started @101) so "-lsr-" is appropriate, or if
> there's
> > > some reason not to merge them then we have 2 documents that need
> the
> > > protocol identifier to disambiguate.
> > >
> > > In this case there's no ambiguity so I don't see the need of adding
> an extra "-
> > > isis-".
> > [Les:] RFC 7810 is specific.
> > There is a separate document for equivalent OSPF functionality (RFC
> 7471).
> >
> > My point is - the reader should not have to go through the body of the
> document to find out that the document is specific to a particular
protocol.
> The document name (which is preserved in the text even when it becomes
> an RFC) should make that clear.
> >
>
> I agree.
>
> From a purely personal point of view, I track OSPF but have no interest
in the
> other protocol (mention of which causes my ISP to blackhole my e-mail). I
> filter the I-D announce list and will see notification of any I-D with
OSPF in the
> title - any without OSPF in the title will pass under the radar.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> >Les
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Chris.
> > >
> > > Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) writes:
> > >
> > > > Well...this raises a topic on which I would like to have feedback
> from the
> > > WG.
> > > >
> > > > Combining /OSPF into one working group is fine - no argument
> there.
> > > > But, we now may be producing two classes of documents:
> > > >
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt
Tom - Thanx for the support. It occurs to me that your filter still needs adjustment however - since there will be cases when a common document is used for all protocols - and in such a case you can only expect "-lsr-" to be in the title. My point is there should be a straightforward way to identify the scope of the content from the name - just using "-lsr-" for all documents is very sub-optimal - and the fix for this is very easy. Les > -Original Message- > From: t.petch > Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 3:43 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Christian Hopps > > Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Acee Lindem (acee) > Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis- > rfc7810bis-00.txt > > - Original Message - > From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 5:26 PM > > > Chris - > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Christian Hopps > > > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 7:32 AM > > > > > > I think that the only time we should include the protocol (in > addition to '-lsr-') > > > is if we have split documents (for whatever reason) on the same > solution. > > > We have an example of this actually: > > > > > > draft-ietf--segment-routing-msd-09 > > > draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-09 > > > > > > Going forward we either combine these types of documents into a > single > > > document (discussion started @101) so "-lsr-" is appropriate, or if > there's > > > some reason not to merge them then we have 2 documents that need > the > > > protocol identifier to disambiguate. > > > > > > In this case there's no ambiguity so I don't see the need of adding > an extra "- > > > isis-". > > [Les:] RFC 7810 is specific. > > There is a separate document for equivalent OSPF functionality (RFC > 7471). > > > > My point is - the reader should not have to go through the body of the > document to find out that the document is specific to a particular protocol. > The document name (which is preserved in the text even when it becomes > an RFC) should make that clear. > > > > I agree. > > From a purely personal point of view, I track OSPF but have no interest in the > other protocol (mention of which causes my ISP to blackhole my e-mail). I > filter the I-D announce list and will see notification of any I-D with OSPF > in the > title - any without OSPF in the title will pass under the radar. > > Tom Petch > > >Les > > > > > Thanks, > > > Chris. > > > > > > Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) writes: > > > > > > > Well...this raises a topic on which I would like to have feedback > from the > > > WG. > > > > > > > > Combining /OSPF into one working group is fine - no argument > there. > > > > But, we now may be producing two classes of documents: > > > > ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt
- Original Message - From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 5:26 PM > Chris - > > > -Original Message- > > From: Christian Hopps > > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 7:32 AM > > > > I think that the only time we should include the protocol (in addition to '-lsr-') > > is if we have split documents (for whatever reason) on the same solution. > > We have an example of this actually: > > > > draft-ietf--segment-routing-msd-09 > > draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-09 > > > > Going forward we either combine these types of documents into a single > > document (discussion started @101) so "-lsr-" is appropriate, or if there's > > some reason not to merge them then we have 2 documents that need the > > protocol identifier to disambiguate. > > > > In this case there's no ambiguity so I don't see the need of adding an extra "- > > isis-". > [Les:] RFC 7810 is specific. > There is a separate document for equivalent OSPF functionality (RFC 7471). > > My point is - the reader should not have to go through the body of the document to find out that the document is specific to a particular protocol. The document name (which is preserved in the text even when it becomes an RFC) should make that clear. > I agree. >From a purely personal point of view, I track OSPF but have no interest in the other protocol (mention of which causes my ISP to blackhole my e-mail). I filter the I-D announce list and will see notification of any I-D with OSPF in the title - any without OSPF in the title will pass under the radar. Tom Petch >Les > > > Thanks, > > Chris. > > > > Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) writes: > > > > > Well...this raises a topic on which I would like to have feedback from the > > WG. > > > > > > Combining /OSPF into one working group is fine - no argument there. > > > But, we now may be producing two classes of documents: > > > ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt
Chris - > -Original Message- > From: Christian Hopps > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 7:32 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis- > rfc7810bis-00.txt > > > I think that the only time we should include the protocol (in addition to > '-lsr-') > is if we have split documents (for whatever reason) on the same solution. > We have an example of this actually: > > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-09 > draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-09 > > Going forward we either combine these types of documents into a single > document (discussion started @101) so "-lsr-" is appropriate, or if there's > some reason not to merge them then we have 2 documents that need the > protocol identifier to disambiguate. > > In this case there's no ambiguity so I don't see the need of adding an extra > "- > isis-". [Les:] RFC 7810 is IS-IS specific. There is a separate document for equivalent OSPF functionality (RFC 7471). My point is - the reader should not have to go through the body of the document to find out that the document is specific to a particular protocol. The document name (which is preserved in the text even when it becomes an RFC) should make that clear. Les > > Thanks, > Chris. > > Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) writes: > > > Well...this raises a topic on which I would like to have feedback from the > WG. > > > > Combining IS-IS/OSPF into one working group is fine - no argument there. > > But, we now may be producing two classes of documents: > > > > 1)Documents which are specific to a protocol (IS-IS or OSPFv2 or > > OSPFv3) > > > > 2)Documents which cover 2 or more protocols > > > > draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt is Category #1 - and there is NO > CHANCE this document will EVER cover OSPF - since OSPF already has RFC > 7471 and this bis document is a correction to the IS-IS specific RFC7810. > Calling > it "-lsr-" to me is simply confusing as it in no way indicates that it is > IS-IS > specific. > > I suggest that any document which falls into Category 1 should continue to > follow the traditional protocol specific naming. > > If this somehow violates some IETF rule then I suppose we could use > > "-lsr-isis-". (somewhat verbose) > > > > For Category 2 documents "-lsr-" certainly makes sense. > > > > Comments?? > > > >Les > > > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Acee Lindem (acee) > >> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 7:45 AM > >> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for > >> draft-ginsberg-isis- rfc7810bis-00.txt > >> > >> Hi Les, > >> > >> Can you resubmit as draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc7810bis-00.txt? Also, > >> please add a "Changes from RFC 7810" section to the "Introduction". I > >> see you have added > >> RFC8174 to the "Requirements Language" section already. > >> > >> I think we should accept this as an LSR Working Group document - does > >> anyone disagree? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Acee > >> > >> On 3/30/18, 6:39 PM, "Lsr on behalf of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" > >> wrote: > >> > >> Folks - > >> > >> A bis version of RFC 7810 has been submitted to address the issue > >> reported in Errata ID: 5293 > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7810 > >> > >> Given that there exist implementations which have interpreted the > >> ambiguous encoding of some sub-TLVs in different/non-interoperable > >> ways it was felt that a bis version of the RFC was justified. > >> Please see the Appendix of the draft for a discussion of the > >> changes from RFC 7810 and the reasons why. > >> > >>Les > >> > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org > >> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 3:33 PM > >> To: Qin Wu ; David Ward (wardd) > >> ; Spencer Giacolone > ; > >> Spencer Giacalone ; John Drake > >> ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; > >> David Ward (wardd) ; Stefano Previdi > > >> Subject: New Version Notification for > >> draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt > >> > >> > >> A new version of I-D, draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7
Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt
Yes, I agree with Chris. That seems as a reasonable approach going forward. G/ -Original Message- From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christian Hopps Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 16:32 To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Acee Lindem (acee) Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt I think that the only time we should include the protocol (in addition to '-lsr-') is if we have split documents (for whatever reason) on the same solution. We have an example of this actually: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-09 draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-09 Going forward we either combine these types of documents into a single document (discussion started @101) so "-lsr-" is appropriate, or if there's some reason not to merge them then we have 2 documents that need the protocol identifier to disambiguate. In this case there's no ambiguity so I don't see the need of adding an extra "-isis-". Thanks, Chris. Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) writes: > Well...this raises a topic on which I would like to have feedback from the WG. > > Combining IS-IS/OSPF into one working group is fine - no argument there. > But, we now may be producing two classes of documents: > > 1)Documents which are specific to a protocol (IS-IS or OSPFv2 or > OSPFv3) > > 2)Documents which cover 2 or more protocols > > draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt is Category #1 - and there is NO CHANCE > this document will EVER cover OSPF - since OSPF already has RFC 7471 and this > bis document is a correction to the IS-IS specific RFC7810. Calling it > "-lsr-" to me is simply confusing as it in no way indicates that it is IS-IS > specific. > I suggest that any document which falls into Category 1 should continue to > follow the traditional protocol specific naming. > If this somehow violates some IETF rule then I suppose we could use > "-lsr-isis-". (somewhat verbose) > > For Category 2 documents "-lsr-" certainly makes sense. > > Comments?? > >Les > > >> -----Original Message- >> From: Acee Lindem (acee) >> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 7:45 AM >> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for >> draft-ginsberg-isis- rfc7810bis-00.txt >> >> Hi Les, >> >> Can you resubmit as draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc7810bis-00.txt? Also, >> please add a "Changes from RFC 7810" section to the "Introduction". I >> see you have added >> RFC8174 to the "Requirements Language" section already. >> >> I think we should accept this as an LSR Working Group document - does >> anyone disagree? >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> On 3/30/18, 6:39 PM, "Lsr on behalf of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" >> wrote: >> >> Folks - >> >> A bis version of RFC 7810 has been submitted to address the issue >> reported in Errata ID: 5293 >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7810 >> >> Given that there exist implementations which have interpreted the >> ambiguous encoding of some sub-TLVs in different/non-interoperable >> ways it was felt that a bis version of the RFC was justified. >> Please see the Appendix of the draft for a discussion of the >> changes from RFC 7810 and the reasons why. >> >>Les >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org >> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 3:33 PM >> To: Qin Wu ; David Ward (wardd) >> ; Spencer Giacolone ; >> Spencer Giacalone ; John Drake >> ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; >> David Ward (wardd) ; Stefano Previdi >> Subject: New Version Notification for >> draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt >> >> >> A new version of I-D, draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt >> has been successfully submitted by Les Ginsberg and posted to the >> IETF repository. >> >> Name:draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis >> Revision:00 >> Title: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions >> Document date: 2018-03-30 >> Group: Individual Submission >> Pages: 19 >> URL:https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ginsberg-isis- >> rfc7810bis-00.txt >> Status: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis/ >> Htmlized: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00 >> Htmlized: >
Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt
I think that the only time we should include the protocol (in addition to '-lsr-') is if we have split documents (for whatever reason) on the same solution. We have an example of this actually: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-09 draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-09 Going forward we either combine these types of documents into a single document (discussion started @101) so "-lsr-" is appropriate, or if there's some reason not to merge them then we have 2 documents that need the protocol identifier to disambiguate. In this case there's no ambiguity so I don't see the need of adding an extra "-isis-". Thanks, Chris. Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) writes: Well...this raises a topic on which I would like to have feedback from the WG. Combining IS-IS/OSPF into one working group is fine - no argument there. But, we now may be producing two classes of documents: 1)Documents which are specific to a protocol (IS-IS or OSPFv2 or OSPFv3) 2)Documents which cover 2 or more protocols draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt is Category #1 - and there is NO CHANCE this document will EVER cover OSPF - since OSPF already has RFC 7471 and this bis document is a correction to the IS-IS specific RFC7810. Calling it "-lsr-" to me is simply confusing as it in no way indicates that it is IS-IS specific. I suggest that any document which falls into Category 1 should continue to follow the traditional protocol specific naming. If this somehow violates some IETF rule then I suppose we could use "-lsr-isis-". (somewhat verbose) For Category 2 documents "-lsr-" certainly makes sense. Comments?? Les -Original Message- From: Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 7:45 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis- rfc7810bis-00.txt Hi Les, Can you resubmit as draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc7810bis-00.txt? Also, please add a "Changes from RFC 7810" section to the "Introduction". I see you have added RFC8174 to the "Requirements Language" section already. I think we should accept this as an LSR Working Group document - does anyone disagree? Thanks, Acee On 3/30/18, 6:39 PM, "Lsr on behalf of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" wrote: Folks - A bis version of RFC 7810 has been submitted to address the issue reported in Errata ID: 5293 https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7810 Given that there exist implementations which have interpreted the ambiguous encoding of some sub-TLVs in different/non-interoperable ways it was felt that a bis version of the RFC was justified. Please see the Appendix of the draft for a discussion of the changes from RFC 7810 and the reasons why. Les -Original Message- From: internet-dra...@ietf.org Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 3:33 PM To: Qin Wu ; David Ward (wardd) ; Spencer Giacolone ; Spencer Giacalone ; John Drake ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; David Ward (wardd) ; Stefano Previdi Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt A new version of I-D, draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Les Ginsberg and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis Revision: 00 Title: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions Document date: 2018-03-30 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 19 URL:https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ginsberg-isis- rfc7810bis-00.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00 Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ginsberg-isis- rfc7810bis Abstract: In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial information networks (e.g., stock market data providers), network- performance criteria (e.g., latency) are becoming as critical to data-path selection as other metrics. This document describes extensions to IS-IS Traffic Engineering Extensions (RFC 5305) such that network-performance information can be distributed and collected in a scalable fashion. The information distributed using IS-IS TE Metric Extensions can then be used to make path-selection decisions based on network performance. Note that this document only covers the mechanisms with which network-performance information is distributed. The mechanisms for measuring network performance or acting on that information, once distributed, are outside the scope of this document. This document obsoletes RFC 7810. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from th
Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt
Fine with me. More important, I would like to fast track this bis document since the changes are so pointed and directly affect the probability of interoperable implementations. How quickly can we move to WG status? Can we do that even before the name change – so I can issue “ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis” ?? Les From: Jeff Tantsura Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 1:58 PM To: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Tony Li ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Cc: lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt +1 I’d think the below would work: lsr for #2 lsr-ospf(ospfv3) / lsr-isis for #1 Cheers, Jeff From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" mailto:a...@cisco.com>> Date: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 13:27 To: Tony Li mailto:tony...@tony.li>>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> Cc: "lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>" mailto:lsr@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt I think the WG name should be in the expected place in the file name. I seem to remember some drafts with -bgp- rather than -idr- that flew under the radar for a while. Thanks, Acee From: Tony Li mailto:tony...@tony.li>> Date: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 4:03 PM To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> Cc: Acee Lindem mailto:a...@cisco.com>>, "lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>" mailto:lsr@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt I don’t see the big deal in having the WG name in the draft title, even for category 1 documents. It’s only the name of the draft and the fact that it is protocol specific doesn’t really need to be called out at that level. People who read the document will certainly figure it out. Tony On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:39 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> wrote: Well...this raises a topic on which I would like to have feedback from the WG. Combining IS-IS/OSPF into one working group is fine - no argument there. But, we now may be producing two classes of documents: 1)Documents which are specific to a protocol (IS-IS or OSPFv2 or OSPFv3) 2)Documents which cover 2 or more protocols draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt is Category #1 - and there is NO CHANCE this document will EVER cover OSPF - since OSPF already has RFC 7471 and this bis document is a correction to the IS-IS specific RFC7810. Calling it "-lsr-" to me is simply confusing as it in no way indicates that it is IS-IS specific. I suggest that any document which falls into Category 1 should continue to follow the traditional protocol specific naming. If this somehow violates some IETF rule then I suppose we could use "-lsr-isis-". (somewhat verbose) For Category 2 documents "-lsr-" certainly makes sense. Comments?? Les > -Original Message- > From: Acee Lindem (acee) > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 7:45 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>>; > lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis- > rfc7810bis-00.txt > > Hi Les, > > Can you resubmit as draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc7810bis-00.txt? Also, please add a > "Changes from RFC 7810" section to the "Introduction". I see you have added > RFC8174 to the "Requirements Language" section already. > > I think we should accept this as an LSR Working Group document - does > anyone disagree? > > Thanks, > Acee > > On 3/30/18, 6:39 PM, "Lsr on behalf of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" boun...@ietf.org<mailto:boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of > ginsb...@cisco.com<mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> wrote: > > Folks - > > A bis version of RFC 7810 has been submitted to address the issue reported > in Errata ID: 5293 https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7810 > > Given that there exist implementations which have interpreted the > ambiguous encoding of some sub-TLVs in different/non-interoperable ways > it was felt that a bis version of the RFC was justified. > Please see the Appendix of the draft for a discussion of the changes from > RFC 7810 and the reasons why. > >Les > > > -Original Message- > From: internet-dra...@ietf.org<mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org> > mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>> > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 3:33 PM > To: Qin Wu mailto:sunse...@huawei.com>>; David Ward > (wardd) > mailto:wa...@cisco.com>>; Spencer Giacolone > mailto:spencer.giacal...@gmail.com>>; > Spencer Giacalone > mailto:spencer.giacal...@gmail.co
Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt
+1 I’d think the below would work: lsr for #2 lsr-ospf(ospfv3) / lsr-isis for #1 Cheers, Jeff From: Lsr on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" Date: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 13:27 To: Tony Li , "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" Cc: "lsr@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt I think the WG name should be in the expected place in the file name. I seem to remember some drafts with -bgp- rather than -idr- that flew under the radar for a while. Thanks, Acee From: Tony Li Date: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 4:03 PM To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" Cc: Acee Lindem , "lsr@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt I don’t see the big deal in having the WG name in the draft title, even for category 1 documents. It’s only the name of the draft and the fact that it is protocol specific doesn’t really need to be called out at that level. People who read the document will certainly figure it out. Tony On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:39 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: Well...this raises a topic on which I would like to have feedback from the WG. Combining IS-IS/OSPF into one working group is fine - no argument there. But, we now may be producing two classes of documents: 1)Documents which are specific to a protocol (IS-IS or OSPFv2 or OSPFv3) 2)Documents which cover 2 or more protocols draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt is Category #1 - and there is NO CHANCE this document will EVER cover OSPF - since OSPF already has RFC 7471 and this bis document is a correction to the IS-IS specific RFC7810. Calling it "-lsr-" to me is simply confusing as it in no way indicates that it is IS-IS specific. I suggest that any document which falls into Category 1 should continue to follow the traditional protocol specific naming. If this somehow violates some IETF rule then I suppose we could use "-lsr-isis-". (somewhat verbose) For Category 2 documents "-lsr-" certainly makes sense. Comments?? Les > -Original Message- > From: Acee Lindem (acee) > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 7:45 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis- > rfc7810bis-00.txt > > Hi Les, > > Can you resubmit as draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc7810bis-00.txt? Also, please add a > "Changes from RFC 7810" section to the "Introduction". I see you have added > RFC8174 to the "Requirements Language" section already. > > I think we should accept this as an LSR Working Group document - does > anyone disagree? > > Thanks, > Acee > > On 3/30/18, 6:39 PM, "Lsr on behalf of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" boun...@ietf.org on behalf of ginsb...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Folks - > > A bis version of RFC 7810 has been submitted to address the issue reported > in Errata ID: 5293 https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7810 > > Given that there exist implementations which have interpreted the > ambiguous encoding of some sub-TLVs in different/non-interoperable ways > it was felt that a bis version of the RFC was justified. > Please see the Appendix of the draft for a discussion of the changes from > RFC 7810 and the reasons why. > >Les > > > -Original Message- > From: internet-dra...@ietf.org > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 3:33 PM > To: Qin Wu ; David Ward (wardd) > ; Spencer Giacolone ; > Spencer Giacalone ; John Drake > ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; David > Ward (wardd) ; Stefano Previdi > Subject: New Version Notification for > draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt > has been successfully submitted by Les Ginsberg and posted to the IETF > repository. > > Name: draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis > Revision: 00 > Title:IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions > Document date:2018-03-30 > Group:Individual Submission > Pages:19 > URL:https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ginsberg-isis- > rfc7810bis-00.txt > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis/ > Htmlized: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00 > Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ginsberg-isis- > rfc7810bis > > > Abstract: >In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial >information networks (e.g., stock market data providers), network- >performance criteria (e.g., latency
Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt
I think the WG name should be in the expected place in the file name. I seem to remember some drafts with -bgp- rather than -idr- that flew under the radar for a while. Thanks, Acee From: Tony Li Date: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 4:03 PM To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" Cc: Acee Lindem , "lsr@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt I don’t see the big deal in having the WG name in the draft title, even for category 1 documents. It’s only the name of the draft and the fact that it is protocol specific doesn’t really need to be called out at that level. People who read the document will certainly figure it out. Tony On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:39 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> wrote: Well...this raises a topic on which I would like to have feedback from the WG. Combining IS-IS/OSPF into one working group is fine - no argument there. But, we now may be producing two classes of documents: 1)Documents which are specific to a protocol (IS-IS or OSPFv2 or OSPFv3) 2)Documents which cover 2 or more protocols draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt is Category #1 - and there is NO CHANCE this document will EVER cover OSPF - since OSPF already has RFC 7471 and this bis document is a correction to the IS-IS specific RFC7810. Calling it "-lsr-" to me is simply confusing as it in no way indicates that it is IS-IS specific. I suggest that any document which falls into Category 1 should continue to follow the traditional protocol specific naming. If this somehow violates some IETF rule then I suppose we could use "-lsr-isis-". (somewhat verbose) For Category 2 documents "-lsr-" certainly makes sense. Comments?? Les > -Original Message- > From: Acee Lindem (acee) > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 7:45 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>>; > lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis- > rfc7810bis-00.txt > > Hi Les, > > Can you resubmit as draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc7810bis-00.txt? Also, please add a > "Changes from RFC 7810" section to the "Introduction". I see you have added > RFC8174 to the "Requirements Language" section already. > > I think we should accept this as an LSR Working Group document - does > anyone disagree? > > Thanks, > Acee > > On 3/30/18, 6:39 PM, "Lsr on behalf of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" boun...@ietf.org<mailto:boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of > ginsb...@cisco.com<mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> wrote: > > Folks - > > A bis version of RFC 7810 has been submitted to address the issue reported > in Errata ID: 5293 https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7810 > > Given that there exist implementations which have interpreted the > ambiguous encoding of some sub-TLVs in different/non-interoperable ways > it was felt that a bis version of the RFC was justified. > Please see the Appendix of the draft for a discussion of the changes from > RFC 7810 and the reasons why. > >Les > > > -Original Message- > From: internet-dra...@ietf.org<mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org> > mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>> > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 3:33 PM > To: Qin Wu mailto:sunse...@huawei.com>>; David Ward > (wardd) > mailto:wa...@cisco.com>>; Spencer Giacolone > mailto:spencer.giacal...@gmail.com>>; > Spencer Giacalone > mailto:spencer.giacal...@gmail.com>>; John Drake > mailto:ldr...@juniper.net>>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>>; David > Ward (wardd) mailto:wa...@cisco.com>>; Stefano Previdi > mailto:stef...@previdi.net>> > Subject: New Version Notification for > draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt > has been successfully submitted by Les Ginsberg and posted to the IETF > repository. > > Name: draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis > Revision: 00 > Title:IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions > Document date:2018-03-30 > Group:Individual Submission > Pages:19 > URL:https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ginsberg-isis- > rfc7810bis-00.txt > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis/ > Htmlized: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00 > Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ginsberg-isis- > rfc7810bis > > > Abstract: >In certain networks, s
Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt
Hi Les, I considered this as well. On 4/4/18, 3:39 PM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" wrote: Well...this raises a topic on which I would like to have feedback from the WG. Combining IS-IS/OSPF into one working group is fine - no argument there. But, we now may be producing two classes of documents: 1)Documents which are specific to a protocol (IS-IS or OSPFv2 or OSPFv3) In this case, the name should include -isis- or -ospf- if there is any ambiguity. In the case of RFC 7810 BIS, there is none since RFC 7810 is IS-IS only. However, I wouldn't complain if you made it draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis.txt. We just need to have "-lsr-" as the WG for all new documents. Thanks, Acee 2)Documents which cover 2 or more protocols draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt is Category #1 - and there is NO CHANCE this document will EVER cover OSPF - since OSPF already has RFC 7471 and this bis document is a correction to the IS-IS specific RFC7810. Calling it "-lsr-" to me is simply confusing as it in no way indicates that it is IS-IS specific. I suggest that any document which falls into Category 1 should continue to follow the traditional protocol specific naming. If this somehow violates some IETF rule then I suppose we could use "-lsr-isis-". (somewhat verbose) For Category 2 documents "-lsr-" certainly makes sense. Comments?? Les > -Original Message- > From: Acee Lindem (acee) > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 7:45 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis- > rfc7810bis-00.txt > > Hi Les, > > Can you resubmit as draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc7810bis-00.txt? Also, please add a > "Changes from RFC 7810" section to the "Introduction". I see you have added > RFC8174 to the "Requirements Language" section already. > > I think we should accept this as an LSR Working Group document - does > anyone disagree? > > Thanks, > Acee > > On 3/30/18, 6:39 PM, "Lsr on behalf of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" boun...@ietf.org on behalf of ginsb...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Folks - > > A bis version of RFC 7810 has been submitted to address the issue reported > in Errata ID: 5293 https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7810 > > Given that there exist implementations which have interpreted the > ambiguous encoding of some sub-TLVs in different/non-interoperable ways > it was felt that a bis version of the RFC was justified. > Please see the Appendix of the draft for a discussion of the changes from > RFC 7810 and the reasons why. > >Les > > > -Original Message- > From: internet-dra...@ietf.org > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 3:33 PM > To: Qin Wu ; David Ward (wardd) > ; Spencer Giacolone ; > Spencer Giacalone ; John Drake > ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; David > Ward (wardd) ; Stefano Previdi > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt > has been successfully submitted by Les Ginsberg and posted to the IETF > repository. > > Name: draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis > Revision: 00 > Title:IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions > Document date:2018-03-30 > Group:Individual Submission > Pages:19 > URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ginsberg-isis- > rfc7810bis-00.txt > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis/ > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00 > Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ginsberg-isis- > rfc7810bis > > > Abstract: >In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial >information networks (e.g., stock market data providers), network- >performance criteria (e.g., latency) are becoming as critical to >data-path selection as other metrics. > >This document describes extensions to IS-IS Traffic Engineering >Extensions (RFC 5305) such that network-performance information can >be distributed and collected in a scalable fashion. The information >dist
Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt
and, probably, this draft won't stay a draft long enough for the problem to have any sort of materialisation. s. On Wed, Apr 4, 2018, 10:03 PM Tony Li wrote: > > I don’t see the big deal in having the WG name in the draft title, even > for category 1 documents. > > It’s only the name of the draft and the fact that it is protocol specific > doesn’t really need to be called out at that level. People who read the > document will certainly figure it out. > > Tony > > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:39 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) < > ginsb...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Well...this raises a topic on which I would like to have feedback from >> the WG. >> >> Combining IS-IS/OSPF into one working group is fine - no argument there. >> But, we now may be producing two classes of documents: >> >> 1)Documents which are specific to a protocol (IS-IS or OSPFv2 or OSPFv3) >> >> 2)Documents which cover 2 or more protocols >> >> draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt is Category #1 - and there is NO >> CHANCE this document will EVER cover OSPF - since OSPF already has RFC 7471 >> and this bis document is a correction to the IS-IS specific RFC7810. >> Calling it "-lsr-" to me is simply confusing as it in no way indicates that >> it is IS-IS specific. >> I suggest that any document which falls into Category 1 should continue >> to follow the traditional protocol specific naming. >> If this somehow violates some IETF rule then I suppose we could use >> "-lsr-isis-". (somewhat verbose) >> >> For Category 2 documents "-lsr-" certainly makes sense. >> >> Comments?? >> >>Les >> >> >> > -Original Message- >> > From: Acee Lindem (acee) >> > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 7:45 AM >> > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org >> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis- >> > rfc7810bis-00.txt >> > >> > Hi Les, >> > >> > Can you resubmit as draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc7810bis-00.txt? Also, please >> add a >> > "Changes from RFC 7810" section to the "Introduction". I see you have >> added >> > RFC8174 to the "Requirements Language" section already. >> > >> > I think we should accept this as an LSR Working Group document - does >> > anyone disagree? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Acee >> > >> > On 3/30/18, 6:39 PM, "Lsr on behalf of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" > > boun...@ietf.org on behalf of ginsb...@cisco.com> wrote: >> > >> > Folks - >> > >> > A bis version of RFC 7810 has been submitted to address the issue >> reported >> > in Errata ID: 5293 >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7810 >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search..php?rfc=7810> >> > >> > Given that there exist implementations which have interpreted the >> > ambiguous encoding of some sub-TLVs in different/non-interoperable ways >> > it was felt that a bis version of the RFC was justified. >> > Please see the Appendix of the draft for a discussion of the >> changes from >> > RFC 7810 and the reasons why. >> > >> >Les >> > >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: internet-dra...@ietf.org >> > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 3:33 PM >> > To: Qin Wu ; David Ward (wardd) >> > ; Spencer Giacolone > >; >> > Spencer Giacalone ; John Drake >> > ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; >> David >> > Ward (wardd) ; Stefano Previdi >> > Subject: New Version Notification for >> draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt >> > >> > >> > A new version of I-D, draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt >> > has been successfully submitted by Les Ginsberg and posted to the >> IETF >> > repository. >> > >> > Name: draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis >> > Revision: 00 >> > Title:IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions >> > Document date:2018-03-30 >> > Group:Individual Submission >> > Pages:19 >> > URL: >> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ginsberg-isis- >> > rfc7810bis-00.txt >> > Status: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis/ >> > Htmlized: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/d
Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt
I don’t see the big deal in having the WG name in the draft title, even for category 1 documents. It’s only the name of the draft and the fact that it is protocol specific doesn’t really need to be called out at that level. People who read the document will certainly figure it out. Tony On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:39 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > Well...this raises a topic on which I would like to have feedback from the > WG. > > Combining IS-IS/OSPF into one working group is fine - no argument there. > But, we now may be producing two classes of documents: > > 1)Documents which are specific to a protocol (IS-IS or OSPFv2 or OSPFv3) > > 2)Documents which cover 2 or more protocols > > draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt is Category #1 - and there is NO > CHANCE this document will EVER cover OSPF - since OSPF already has RFC 7471 > and this bis document is a correction to the IS-IS specific RFC7810. > Calling it "-lsr-" to me is simply confusing as it in no way indicates that > it is IS-IS specific. > I suggest that any document which falls into Category 1 should continue to > follow the traditional protocol specific naming. > If this somehow violates some IETF rule then I suppose we could use > "-lsr-isis-". (somewhat verbose) > > For Category 2 documents "-lsr-" certainly makes sense. > > Comments?? > >Les > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Acee Lindem (acee) > > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 7:45 AM > > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis- > > rfc7810bis-00.txt > > > > Hi Les, > > > > Can you resubmit as draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc7810bis-00.txt? Also, please > add a > > "Changes from RFC 7810" section to the "Introduction". I see you have > added > > RFC8174 to the "Requirements Language" section already. > > > > I think we should accept this as an LSR Working Group document - does > > anyone disagree? > > > > Thanks, > > Acee > > > > On 3/30/18, 6:39 PM, "Lsr on behalf of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" > boun...@ietf.org on behalf of ginsb...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > Folks - > > > > A bis version of RFC 7810 has been submitted to address the issue > reported > > in Errata ID: 5293 https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7810 > > > > Given that there exist implementations which have interpreted the > > ambiguous encoding of some sub-TLVs in different/non-interoperable ways > > it was felt that a bis version of the RFC was justified. > > Please see the Appendix of the draft for a discussion of the changes > from > > RFC 7810 and the reasons why. > > > >Les > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: internet-dra...@ietf.org > > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 3:33 PM > > To: Qin Wu ; David Ward (wardd) > > ; Spencer Giacolone ; > > Spencer Giacalone ; John Drake > > ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; > David > > Ward (wardd) ; Stefano Previdi > > Subject: New Version Notification for > draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt > > > > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt > > has been successfully submitted by Les Ginsberg and posted to the > IETF > > repository. > > > > Name: draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis > > Revision: 00 > > Title:IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions > > Document date:2018-03-30 > > Group:Individual Submission > > Pages:19 > > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ginsberg-isis- > > rfc7810bis-00.txt > > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis/ > > Htmlized: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00 > > Htmlized: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ginsberg-isis- > > rfc7810bis > > > > > > Abstract: > >In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial > >information networks (e.g., stock market data providers), network- > >performance criteria (e.g., latency) are becoming as critical to > >data-path selection as other metrics. > > > >This document describes extensions to IS-IS Traffic Engineering > >Extensions (RFC 5305) such that network-performance information > can > >be distributed and collected in a scalable fashion. The > in
Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt
Well...this raises a topic on which I would like to have feedback from the WG. Combining IS-IS/OSPF into one working group is fine - no argument there. But, we now may be producing two classes of documents: 1)Documents which are specific to a protocol (IS-IS or OSPFv2 or OSPFv3) 2)Documents which cover 2 or more protocols draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt is Category #1 - and there is NO CHANCE this document will EVER cover OSPF - since OSPF already has RFC 7471 and this bis document is a correction to the IS-IS specific RFC7810. Calling it "-lsr-" to me is simply confusing as it in no way indicates that it is IS-IS specific. I suggest that any document which falls into Category 1 should continue to follow the traditional protocol specific naming. If this somehow violates some IETF rule then I suppose we could use "-lsr-isis-". (somewhat verbose) For Category 2 documents "-lsr-" certainly makes sense. Comments?? Les > -Original Message- > From: Acee Lindem (acee) > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 7:45 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis- > rfc7810bis-00.txt > > Hi Les, > > Can you resubmit as draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc7810bis-00.txt? Also, please add a > "Changes from RFC 7810" section to the "Introduction". I see you have added > RFC8174 to the "Requirements Language" section already. > > I think we should accept this as an LSR Working Group document - does > anyone disagree? > > Thanks, > Acee > > On 3/30/18, 6:39 PM, "Lsr on behalf of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" boun...@ietf.org on behalf of ginsb...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Folks - > > A bis version of RFC 7810 has been submitted to address the issue reported > in Errata ID: 5293 https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7810 > > Given that there exist implementations which have interpreted the > ambiguous encoding of some sub-TLVs in different/non-interoperable ways > it was felt that a bis version of the RFC was justified. > Please see the Appendix of the draft for a discussion of the changes from > RFC 7810 and the reasons why. > >Les > > > -Original Message- > From: internet-dra...@ietf.org > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 3:33 PM > To: Qin Wu ; David Ward (wardd) > ; Spencer Giacolone ; > Spencer Giacalone ; John Drake > ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; David > Ward (wardd) ; Stefano Previdi > Subject: New Version Notification for > draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt > has been successfully submitted by Les Ginsberg and posted to the IETF > repository. > > Name: draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis > Revision: 00 > Title:IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions > Document date:2018-03-30 > Group:Individual Submission > Pages:19 > URL:https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ginsberg-isis- > rfc7810bis-00.txt > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis/ > Htmlized: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00 > Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ginsberg-isis- > rfc7810bis > > > Abstract: >In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial >information networks (e.g., stock market data providers), network- >performance criteria (e.g., latency) are becoming as critical to >data-path selection as other metrics. > >This document describes extensions to IS-IS Traffic Engineering >Extensions (RFC 5305) such that network-performance information can >be distributed and collected in a scalable fashion. The information >distributed using IS-IS TE Metric Extensions can then be used to make >path-selection decisions based on network performance. > >Note that this document only covers the mechanisms with which >network-performance information is distributed. The mechanisms for >measuring network performance or acting on that information, once >distributed, are outside the scope of this document. > >This document obsoletes RFC 7810. > > > > > > 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. > > The IETF Secretariat > > ___ > 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
Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt
Hi Les, Can you resubmit as draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc7810bis-00.txt? Also, please add a "Changes from RFC 7810" section to the "Introduction". I see you have added RFC8174 to the "Requirements Language" section already. I think we should accept this as an LSR Working Group document - does anyone disagree? Thanks, Acee On 3/30/18, 6:39 PM, "Lsr on behalf of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" wrote: Folks - A bis version of RFC 7810 has been submitted to address the issue reported in Errata ID: 5293 https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7810 Given that there exist implementations which have interpreted the ambiguous encoding of some sub-TLVs in different/non-interoperable ways it was felt that a bis version of the RFC was justified. Please see the Appendix of the draft for a discussion of the changes from RFC 7810 and the reasons why. Les -Original Message- From: internet-dra...@ietf.org Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 3:33 PM To: Qin Wu ; David Ward (wardd) ; Spencer Giacolone ; Spencer Giacalone ; John Drake ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; David Ward (wardd) ; Stefano Previdi Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt A new version of I-D, draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Les Ginsberg and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis Revision: 00 Title: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions Document date: 2018-03-30 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 19 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00 Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis Abstract: In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial information networks (e.g., stock market data providers), network- performance criteria (e.g., latency) are becoming as critical to data-path selection as other metrics. This document describes extensions to IS-IS Traffic Engineering Extensions (RFC 5305) such that network-performance information can be distributed and collected in a scalable fashion. The information distributed using IS-IS TE Metric Extensions can then be used to make path-selection decisions based on network performance. Note that this document only covers the mechanisms with which network-performance information is distributed. The mechanisms for measuring network performance or acting on that information, once distributed, are outside the scope of this document. This document obsoletes RFC 7810. 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. The IETF Secretariat ___ 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] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt
Folks - A bis version of RFC 7810 has been submitted to address the issue reported in Errata ID: 5293 https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7810 Given that there exist implementations which have interpreted the ambiguous encoding of some sub-TLVs in different/non-interoperable ways it was felt that a bis version of the RFC was justified. Please see the Appendix of the draft for a discussion of the changes from RFC 7810 and the reasons why. Les -Original Message- From: internet-dra...@ietf.org Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 3:33 PM To: Qin Wu ; David Ward (wardd) ; Spencer Giacolone ; Spencer Giacalone ; John Drake ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; David Ward (wardd) ; Stefano Previdi Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt A new version of I-D, draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Les Ginsberg and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis Revision: 00 Title: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions Document date: 2018-03-30 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 19 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00 Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis Abstract: In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial information networks (e.g., stock market data providers), network- performance criteria (e.g., latency) are becoming as critical to data-path selection as other metrics. This document describes extensions to IS-IS Traffic Engineering Extensions (RFC 5305) such that network-performance information can be distributed and collected in a scalable fashion. The information distributed using IS-IS TE Metric Extensions can then be used to make path-selection decisions based on network performance. Note that this document only covers the mechanisms with which network-performance information is distributed. The mechanisms for measuring network performance or acting on that information, once distributed, are outside the scope of this document. This document obsoletes RFC 7810. 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. The IETF Secretariat ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
