Hi all, I agree with Stewart: it would be clearer to make explicit that all the protocol work we have been referring to as "Traffic Engineering"/"extended metrics"/"topological parameters"/etc. is still in scope of the LSR WG.
By the way, I think is would be great to also mention the PCE WG when we tackle the list of expected coordinations, somewhere near MPLS and TEAS... Thanks, Julien Jan. 25, 2018 - stewart.bry...@gmail.com: > > Les > > I agree wrt L2 > > Isn't another focus collecting the information to feed into an SDN > controller via BGP-LS? That is really network layer state collection > rather than routing in the traditional sense. > > - Stewart > > > On 24/01/2018 23:09, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: >> >> It occurred to me after sending this that perhaps a better statement >> as regards IS-IS would be: >> >> >> >> “LSR’s work is focused on IP/IPv6 and Layer 2 routing…” >> >> >> >> though admittedly there isn’t much going on as regards Layer2 and >> IS-IS at the moment. >> >> >> >> Les >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:*Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Les >> Ginsberg (ginsberg) >> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2018 2:33 PM >> >> >> >> Since a charter only provides a general definition of the work that >> falls within the purview of the WG it requires some adjunct to keep >> track of the current priorities. >> >> That could be the list of milestones (which OSPF has regularly >> maintained – but IS-IS has not) – or it could simply be the list of >> active WG documents. >> >> I just don’t see that we should expect the charter to express “work >> in progress” now – or in the future. >> >> >> >> Alia – do you think the statement about IS-IS: >> >> >> >> “LSR’s work is focused on IP routing…” >> >> >> >> Could be improved by saying >> >> >> >> “LSR’s work is focused on IP/IPv6 routing…” >> >> >> >> ??? >> >> >> >> Les >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:*Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of >> *Stewart Bryant >> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2018 10:01 AM >> >> Yes that fixes that. >> >> How about: >> >> s/The following topics are expected to be an initial focus:/ In >> addition to ongoing maintenance, the following topics are expected to >> be an initial focus:/ >> >> I am just concerned that we need not to loose focus on work in progress. >> >> - Stewart >> >> >> >> On 24/01/2018 17:54, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> >> How about: >> >> >> >> LSR will coordinate with CCAMP and BIER on their extensions to >> the LSR IGPs as >> >> applicable to LSV protocol operation and scale. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Acee >> >> >> >> *From: *Isis-wg >> <isis-wg-boun...@ietf.org><mailto:isis-wg-boun...@ietf.org>on >> behalf of Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com><mailto:akat...@gmail.com> >> *Date: *Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 12:42 PM >> >> >> >> Hi Stewart, >> >> >> >> Thanks for the quick feedback. Feel free to provide suggestions >> for text changes if you have them. >> >> You've certainly written enough charters :-) >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Alia >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Stewart Bryant >> <stewart.bry...@gmail.com<mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Alia, >> >> I think that this merger is long overdue, and hopefully it >> will help new features to be written in an aligned way. >> >> I think the remit to perform general maintenance should >> slightly clarified since the way the charter is written they >> look like they are at a lower priority than the enumerated list. >> >> I would have thought that "LSR can coordinate with CCAMP and >> BIER on their extensions " should have been more directive. >> >> - Stewart >> >> >> >> On 24/01/2018 17:18, Alia Atlas wrote: >> >> Here is the proposed charter for the LSR working group >> >> that will be created from the SPF and ISIS working groups. >> >> >> >> This is scheduled for internal review for the IESG >> telechat on February 8. >> >> >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lsr/ >> >> >> >> The Link-State Routing (LSR) Working Group is chartered >> to document current protocol implementation practices and >> improvements, protocol usage scenarios, maintenance and >> extensions of link-state routing interior gateway >> protocols (IGPs) with a focus on IS-IS, OSPFv2, and >> OSPFv3. The LSR Working Group is formed by merging the >> isis and ospf WGs and will take on all their existing >> adopted work at the time of chartering. >> >> >> >> IS-IS is an IGP specified and standardized by ISO through >> ISO 10589:2002 and additional RFC standards with >> extensions to support IP that has been deployed in the >> Internet for decades. For the IS-IS protocol, LSR’s work >> is focused on IP routing, currently based on the >> agreement in RFC 3563 with ISO/JTC1/SC6. The LSR WG will >> interact with other standards bodies that have >> responsible for standardizing IS-IS. >> >> >> >> OSPFv2 [RFC 2328 and extensions], is an IGP that has been >> deployed in the Internet for decades. OSPFv3 [RFC5340 and >> extensions] provides OSPF for IPv6 and IPv4 [RFC5838] >> which can be delivered over IPv6 or IPv4 [RFC 7949]. >> >> >> >> The LSR Working Group will generally manage its specific >> work items by milestones agreed with the responsible Area >> Director. >> >> >> >> The following topics are expected to be an initial focus: >> >> >> >> 1) Improving OSPF support for IPv6 and extensions using >> OSPFv3 LSA Extendibility. >> >> 2) Extensions needed for Segment Routing and associated >> architectural changes >> >> 3) YANG models for IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3 and extensions >> >> 4) Extensions for source-destination routing >> [draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing] >> >> 5) Potentially, extensions to better support specific >> network topologies such as >> >> ones commonly used in data centers. >> >> >> >> The Link-State Routing (LSR) Working Group will >> coordinate with other working groups, such as RTGWG, >> SPRING, MPLS, TEAS, V6OPS, and 6MAN, to understand the >> need for extensions and to confirm that the planned work >> meets the needs. LSR can coordinate with CCAMP and BIER >> on their extensions to the LSR IGPs as useful. LSR may >> coordinate with other WGs as needed. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Alia >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Isis-wg mailing list >> >> isis...@ietf.org<mailto:isis...@ietf.org> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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