Les， Thanks for this email. I will review this doc and then determine how to update the ISIS-ELC and OSPF-ELC drafts according.
Xiaohu 发自我的 iPhone > 在 2018年1月11日，02:44，Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> 写道： > > Xiaohu - > > V9 of the MSD draft has been posted with the promised changes. > Please review. I hope this leads to you revising > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc/ to make use of the > MSD sub-TLV to advertise RLD. > > Les > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 12:13 AM >> To: Xuxiaohu <[email protected]>; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) >> <[email protected]>; Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; isis- >> [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for >> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07 >> >> Xiaohu - >> >> Work on a revision to the MSD draft to make the names and text consistent >> with the goal that multiple types of "MSD" will be advertised using the same >> sub-TLV is in progress. Once authors have agreed on the changes you will see >> a new revision. >> >> Can I assume that once this is done you are open to changing the mpls-elc >> drafts to use the more generic encoding for advertising RLD? >> >> I think this is important to make judicious use of sub-TLV code points. >> As written, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-03 requires >> a >> distinct sub-TLV from the set of sub-TLVs defined for TLV 242 to advertise >> RLD. If this model were to be applied for other types of "MSD", I can foresee >> consumption of a significant number of sub-TLV codepoints just for all the >> flavors of "MSD". This is one reason we defined the generic MSD sub-TLV >> format in draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd. A single sub-TLV can be used >> to advertise as many different MSD types as necessary. >> >> There are also other benefits: >> >> An IGP agnostic registry is defined to assign MSD types. This means the same >> type value can be used in OSPF, IS-IS, and in BGP-LS. >> >> In IS-IS there is a small efficiency gain in that we do not have to >> advertise a >> length for each MSD type. >> >> I look forward to feedback from you once the new revision of the MSD draft >> is published. >> >> Thanx. >> >> Les >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Xuxiaohu [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 6:40 PM >>> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; Ketan Talaulikar >>> (ketant) <[email protected]>; Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; >>> isis- [email protected] >>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] >>> Subject: 答复: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for >>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd- >>> 07 >>> >>> Hi Les, >>> >>> If I understand it correctly, the MSD concept was originated from >>> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11#page-7) >>> as described below: >>> >>> "The "Maximum SID Depth" (1 >>> octet) field (MSD) specifies the maximum number of SIDs (MPLS label >>> stack depth in the context of this document) that a PCC is capable of >>> imposing on a packet." >>> >>> Before considering expanding the semantics of the MSD concept as >>> defined in the above PCE-SR draft, how about first considering >>> renaming the capability of imposing the maximum number of labels so as >>> to eliminate possible confusions, e.g., Writable Label-stack Depth >>> (WLD) as opposed to the Readable Label-stack Depth (RLD) as defined in >>> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc) and >>> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc) ? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Xiaohu >>> >>>> -----邮件原件----- >>>> 发件人: Isis-wg [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Les Ginsberg >>>> (ginsberg) >>>> 发送时间: 2017年12月21日 4:02 >>>> 收件人: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant); Christian Hopps; [email protected] >>>> 抄送: [email protected]; [email protected] >>>> 主题: Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for >>>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07 >>>> >>>> Ketan - >>>> >>>> Thanx for the comments. >>>> I think we do want to allow MSD support for values other than >>>> imposition values. We will revise the text so we are not restricted >>>> to only >>> imposition cases. >>>> >>>> Les >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 1:51 AM >>>>> To: Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; [email protected] >>>>> Cc: [email protected]; >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for >>>>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07 >>>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> I support this document and would like to ask the authors and WG >>>>> to consider if we can expand the scope of this draft to not just >>>>> "imposition" of the SID stack but also other similar limits >>>>> related to other >>>> actions (e.g. >>>>> reading, processing, etc.). With Segment Routing, we are coming >>>>> across various actions that nodes need to do with the SID stack >>>>> for different purposes and IMHO it would be useful to extend the >>>>> MSD ability to cover those as they arise. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Ketan >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Isis-wg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>>>> Christian Hopps >>>>> Sent: 20 December 2017 14:03 >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Cc: [email protected]; >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> Subject: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for >>>>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The authors have asked for and we are starting a WG Last Call on >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-m >>>>> sd >>>>> / >>>>> >>>>> which will last an extended 4 weeks to allow for year-end PTO patterns. >>>>> >>>>> An IPR statement exists: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-iet >>>>> f- >>>>> is >>>>> is- >>>>> segment-routing-msd >>>>> >>>>> Authors please reply to the list indicating whether you are aware >>>>> of any >>>>> *new* IPR. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Chris. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Isis-wg mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Isis-wg mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
