Hi Les, I was talking in terms of general IETF terminology as opposed to specific terminology in this draft. For example, we have various groups of links, e.g., SRLGs and LAGs. It is more consistent to use “group” for adjacencies as well. Thanks, Acee
On 10/2/17, 4:16 PM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsb...@cisco.com> wrote: >Acee - > >OSPF draft currently says: > >"The G-Flag: Group Flag. When set, the G-Flag indicates that > the Adj-SID refers to a group of adjacencies (and therefore MAY > be assigned to other adjacencies as well)." > >IS-IS draft currently says: > >"S-Flag. Set flag. When set, the S-Flag indicates that the > Adj-SID refers to a set of adjacencies (and therefore MAY be > assigned to other adjacencies as well)." > >I do not see the terms "link-group" or "link-set" in either draft and I >don’t see how they would apply to "adjacencies". >So exactly what is the issue and what is the proposed change? > >If the concern is about the name "G-flag" vs "S-flag" - I find this much >ado about very little. (Sorry...) > > Les > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem >> (acee) >> Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 11:46 AM >> To: Goethals, Dirk (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <dirk.goeth...@nokia.com> >> Cc: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org> >> Subject: Re: [OSPF] draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions >> >> Hi Dirk, >> >> I agree we should use the same term but we have finished WG last call >>and >> AD review for the OSPFv2 Segment Routing extensions. Additionally, >> everyone is familiar with the term link-group. A link-set would be new >> terminology. Let’s fix the IS-IS draft. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> > >> > >> > >> >-------- Original Message -------- >> >Subject: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions >> >Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 06:26:45 -0700 >> >Resent-From: <alias-boun...@ietf.org> >> >Resent-To: <ppse...@cisco.com>, <stef...@previdi.net>, >> ><cfils...@cisco.com>, <han...@rtbrick.com>, <ro...@google.com>, >> ><wim.henderi...@nokia.com>, <jefftant.i...@gmail.com> >> >Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 15:26:47 +0200 >> >From: Dirk Goethals <dirk.goeth...@nokia.com> >> >To: <draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensi...@ietf.org>, >> ><draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensi...@ietf.org>, >> >"draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensi...@ietf.org" >> ><draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensi...@ietf.org> >> > >> > >> > >> >Hi authors, >> > >> >OSPF's G-flag and ISIS's S-flag are both representing adjacency sets, >> >see snip below, can we align these definitions and simply call it >> >S-Flag in both IGPs. >> > >> >Thx, >> >Dirk >> > >> >OSPFv2 and OSPFv3: >> > >> > The G-Flag. Group Flag. When set, the G-Flag indicates >>that >> > the Adj-SID refers to a set of adjacencies (and therefore >>MAY >> > be assigned to other adjacencies as well). >> > >> > >> > >> >ISIS: >> > >> > S-Flag. Set flag. When set, the S-Flag indicates that the >> > Adj-SID refers to a set of adjacencies (and therefore MAY be >> > assigned to other adjacencies as well). >> > >> >. >> > >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OSPF mailing list >> OSPF@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
