One comment – I would add a bit of text at the end of the below-quoted sentence to ensure that “extensions planned to meet the needs” do not create stability/performance problems to IGPs. I proposed a text in red for that:
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 and is compatible with both IS-IS and OSPF from functional, architectural and performance point of views Andrew From: Isis-wg <isis-wg-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 1:19 AM To: "isis...@ietf.org" <isis...@ietf.org>, OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org> Subject: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter 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
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
