Re: [Lsr] Inconsistence regarding the definition of "Adj-SID Sub-TLV" between OSPF and ISIS extension for Segment Routing

2018-04-10 Thread Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Hi Aijun, You say that certain parts of sections 3 (Procedures) are unnecessary and at the same time you ask for “some clarification” and for “error prone” TLV definitions. I do not anymore follow your point or what is it that you want updated in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext.

Re: [Lsr] Inconsistence regarding the definition of "Adj-SID Sub-TLV" between OSPF and ISIS extension for Segment Routing

2018-04-09 Thread Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Hi Aijun, As responded previously and also clarified by few others, the 3 IGP protocols (ISIS, OSPFv2 and OSPFv3) and BGP-LS are different protocols. Their encodings need not be identical. However, their semantics generally are so when it comes mapping them into BGP-LS. At this stage, given

Re: [Lsr] Inconsistence regarding the definition of "Adj-SID Sub-TLV" between OSPF and ISIS extension for Segment Routing

2018-04-04 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
A strong +1 from me as well. This is a clear example where the functional content is the same, but differences exist in the encoding for reasons which are specific to each protocol. Les > -Original Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of Peter Psenak (ppsenak) >

Re: [Lsr] Inconsistence regarding the definition of "Adj-SID Sub-TLV" between OSPF and ISIS extension for Segment Routing

2018-04-04 Thread Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
< including IDR WG where BGP-LS work is being done > Hi Aijun, As discussed offline, this is a bug in this particular implementation where it is not following the spec properly. This goes back to the discussion in the IDR WG about the semantic and syntactic validation for BGP-LS messages

Re: [Lsr] Inconsistence regarding the definition of "Adj-SID Sub-TLV" between OSPF and ISIS extension for Segment Routing

2018-04-03 Thread stefano previdi
me too. If we want to align the encoding, we should probably better align the protocol name directly... s. > On Apr 3, 2018, at 9:34 AM, Peter Psenak wrote: > > On 02/04/18 14:19 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> Speaking as WG member: >> >> I couldn’t agree more with

Re: [Lsr] Inconsistence regarding the definition of "Adj-SID Sub-TLV" between OSPF and ISIS extension for Segment Routing

2018-04-02 Thread Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Hi Aijun, Can you clarify what you mean by "inconsistencies"? Also, you are referring the old version of OSPFv3 SR draft before it was aligned with the OSPFv2 SR draft. Please check https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-11#section-6.1 OSPF and ISIS are

[Lsr] Inconsistence regarding the definition of "Adj-SID Sub-TLV" between OSPF and ISIS extension for Segment Routing

2018-04-02 Thread Aijun Wang
Hi, All: We found there were some inconsistences for the definition of "Adjacency Segment Identifier" between OSPF and ISIS extension for segment routing, please see the link below for comparison. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-15#se ction-2.2.1

[Lsr] Inconsistence regarding the definition of "Adj-SID Sub-TLV" between OSPF and ISIS extension for Segment Routing

2018-04-02 Thread Aijun Wang
Hi, All: We found there were some inconsistence for the definition of "Adjacency Segment Identifier" between OSPF and ISIS extension for segment routing, please see the link below for comparison. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-15#se ction-2.2.1