From isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org Fri Sep 07 06:32:09 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ITb6P-0000EX-4n; Fri, 07 Sep 2007 06:30:17 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ITb6O-0000EN-6L for isis-wg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Sep 2007 06:30:16 -0400 Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com ([61.144.161.7]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ITb6K-0004rn-Pk for isis-wg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Sep 2007 06:30:16 -0400 Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JNZ007K9UGS9K@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for isis-wg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Sep 2007 18:29:16 +0800 (CST) Received: from M55527 ([10.111.12.79]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JNZ00JRNUGLSN@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for isis-wg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Sep 2007 18:29:16 +0800 (CST) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 18:29:04 +0800 From: Mach Chen To: isis-wg@ietf.org Message-id: <010e01c7f139$ea70f650$4f0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-index: AcfxOen+b2KOthbxTxSfgTuCPXNvEw== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 772a6990a160cebc49b9e3d175956d12 Subject: [Isis-wg] FWD: I-D ACTION:draft-chen-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-01.txt X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1010116805==" Errors-To: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1010116805== Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_9koco37HaMqcmQ+Nvn1LvQ)" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_9koco37HaMqcmQ+Nvn1LvQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi folks, This document is about extension to ISIS-TE in support of inter-AS TE. It is the "brother" draft of the ID: draft-ietf-ccamp-interas-te-extension-01.txt, which now is already a CCAMP document. We have updated the I-Ds according to the comments received from IETF 69th meeting in Chicago. You could reach it by the following link: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extensi on-01.txt We thank for your inputs to this I-D, any comments, suggestion and discussion on this I-D are very welcome. Compare to rev.00, the main changes in rev.01 are listed below: 1. Wording changes in several places; 2. According to Kireeti's comments, make a clear statement: There is no ISIS adjacency running on the inter-AS link; 3. Enhance the PCE-based scenario to explain that the AS number property of an inter-AS TE link is needed, and clearly state that the AS number sub-TLV is mandatory for an inter-AS TE link; 4. Add the missing part about that the local ASBR SHOULD do a "proxy" advertisement for the backward of an inter-AS TE link; 5. Enhance the Security section. Best regards, Mach --Boundary_(ID_9koco37HaMqcmQ+Nvn1LvQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Hi folks,

 

This document is about extension to ISIS-TE in support of inter-AS TE. It is the “brother” draft of the ID: draft-ietf-ccamp-interas-te-extension-01.txt, which now is already a CCAMP document.

We have updated the I-Ds according to the comments received from IETF 69th meeting in Chicago. You could reach it by the following link:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-01.txt

 

We thank for your inputs to this I-D, any comments, suggestion and discussion on this I-D are very welcome.

 

Compare to rev.00, the main changes in rev.01 are listed below:

 

1. Wording changes in several places;

2. According to Kireeti's comments, make a clear statement: There is no ISIS adjacency running on the inter-AS link;

3. Enhance the PCE-based scenario to explain that the AS number property of an inter-AS TE link is needed, and clearly state that the AS number sub-TLV is mandatory for an inter-AS TE link;

4. Add the missing part about that the local ASBR SHOULD do a "proxy" advertisement for the backward of an inter-AS TE link;

5. Enhance the Security section.

 

Best regards,

Mach

 

--Boundary_(ID_9koco37HaMqcmQ+Nvn1LvQ)-- --===============1010116805== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg --===============1010116805==-- From isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 13 17:32:31 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IVwHe-00032e-26; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:31:34 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IVwHc-000328-Rm; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:31:32 -0400 Received: from rutherford.zen.co.uk ([212.23.3.142]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IVwHc-0004w7-Gs; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:31:32 -0400 Received: from [88.96.235.138] (helo=cortex.aria-networks.com) by rutherford.zen.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IVwHb-000770-G2; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:31:31 +0000 Received: from your029b8cecfe ([81.140.15.32] RDNS failed) by cortex.aria-networks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:31:30 +0100 Message-ID: <05da01c7f64d$6e7dc780$3901850a@your029b8cecfe> From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:30:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Sep 2007 21:31:30.0982 (UTC) FILETIME=[733FBC60:01C7F64D] X-Originating-Rutherford-IP: [88.96.235.138] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2 Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Isis-wg] Please comment on draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-07.txt X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Adrian Farrel List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org Hi, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-07.txt has recently been posted. The last couple of revisions addressed comments raised by the IESG and by the IGP working group chairs, etc. This is a call to you for a further review of the I-D. We'll run with a two week deadline to 28th September. Many thanks, Adrian _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 19 05:48:47 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IXw8C-0005Wd-Ht; Wed, 19 Sep 2007 05:46:04 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IXw8B-0005WM-7E; Wed, 19 Sep 2007 05:46:03 -0400 Received: from exprod7og60.obsmtp.com ([64.18.2.175]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IXw8A-0002sx-Qa; Wed, 19 Sep 2007 05:46:03 -0400 Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) by exprod7ob60.obsmtp.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Wed, 19 Sep 2007 02:45:51 PDT Received: from [172.26.200.8] ([172.26.200.8]) by emailsmtp55.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 19 Sep 2007 02:45:56 -0700 Message-ID: <46F0EFD2.7020801@juniper.net> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:45:54 +0200 From: Hannes Gredler User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Farrel Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Please comment on draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-07.txt References: <05da01c7f64d$6e7dc780$3901850a@your029b8cecfe> In-Reply-To: <05da01c7f64d$6e7dc780$3901850a@your029b8cecfe> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Sep 2007 09:45:56.0765 (UTC) FILETIME=[E0915CD0:01C7FAA1] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c Cc: pce@ietf.org, isis-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org no comment - looks good to me - /hannes Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-07.txt > has recently been posted. The last couple of revisions addressed > comments raised by the IESG and by the IGP working group chairs, etc. > > This is a call to you for a further review of the I-D. > > We'll run with a two week deadline to 28th September. > > Many thanks, > Adrian _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 20 12:00:30 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IYOPN-0002wI-3r; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:57:41 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IYOPI-0002rJ-BB; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:57:36 -0400 Received: from bosco.isi.edu ([128.9.168.207]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IYOPH-0002ai-OQ; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:57:36 -0400 Received: by bosco.isi.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 84284E35CB; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 08:54:14 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20070920155414.84284E35CB@bosco.isi.edu> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 08:54:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Score: -15.0 (---------------) X-Scan-Signature: f60d0f7806b0c40781eee6b9cd0b2135 Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Isis-wg] RFC 5029 on Definition of an IS-IS Link Attribute Sub-TLV X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 5029 Title: Definition of an IS-IS Link Attribute Sub-TLV Author: JP. Vasseur, S. Previdi Status: Standards Track Date: September 2007 Mailbox: jpv@cisco.com, sprevidi@cisco.com Pages: 6 Characters: 9887 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-isis-link-attr-03.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5029.txt This document defines a sub-TLV called "Link-attributes" carried within the TLV 22 and used to flood some link characteristics. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document is a product of the IS-IS for IP Internets Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list. Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list should be sent to IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG. Requests to be added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example: To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG Subject: getting rfcs help: ways_to_get_rfcs Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC Authors, for further information. The RFC Editor Team USC/Information Sciences Institute ... _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 25 09:03:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaA1u-0001k3-A6; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:00:46 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaA1s-0001jh-64; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:00:44 -0400 Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaA1r-0007C7-9I; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:00:44 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.20,295,1186372800"; d="scan'208,217";a="132934483" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Sep 2007 09:00:38 -0400 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l8PD0g1e017627; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:00:42 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l8PD0UV8020510; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:00:42 GMT Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:00:31 -0400 Received: from [10.86.104.178] ([10.86.104.178]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:00:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1189805794.46eafee2b6808@www.imp.polymtl.ca> References: <05da01c7f64d$6e7dc780$3901850a@your029b8cecfe> <1189805794.46eafee2b6808@www.imp.polymtl.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Message-Id: From: JP Vasseur Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:59:48 -0400 To: Meral Shirazipour X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Sep 2007 13:00:30.0043 (UTC) FILETIME=[0CDCBAB0:01C7FF74] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=15551; t=1190725242; x=1191589242; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jvasseur@cisco.com; z=From:=20JP=20Vasseur=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Pce]=20Please=20comment=20on=20draft-ietf-pce-disco- proto-isis-07.txt |Sender:=20 |To:=20Meral=20Shirazipour=20; bh=rRxxM5gZ52YqwW36FlvXf1sUOA64P9E4kKlw7eqRlmE=; b=hxPO7UgEL8Yl6Cbnr3U/fCvVVKv/ygvAq1MzCHEkYPCk7llfx2qC7k7X96aNc7TPN179osWF MNs8arj+2dOyyoWtf406rALwtTXh26l8u0mRwcRxE+i8h4BfEpi+M35Z; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=jvasseur@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9cc83ac38bbbabacbf00f656311dd8d8 Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org, Jean-Philippe Vasseur , pce@ietf.org, Jean-Louis Le Roux , Acee Lindem , Abhay Roy Subject: [Isis-wg] Re: [Pce] Please comment on draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-07.txt X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0399917870==" Errors-To: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org --===============0399917870== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-269--182892764 --Apple-Mail-269--182892764 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed Hi, Some concerns were expressed by several individuals, and OSPF WG chairs about the potential size of the PCED and more recently issues were raised during IESG review because of the dynamic nature of the CONGESTION TLV carried within the PCED TLV. So the agreement we had was to: 1) Indicate in the document that no further sub-TLV will be added in the future. Should there be a need to advertise more PCE capability, this =20= can still be part of the PCEP session establishment phase. *If* at some =20 point, there is a need to use the IGP to advertise more data, then this =20 should be done using the GENINFO TLV defined draft-ginsberg-isis-genapp potentially using a different Is-IS instance and by using a new Opaque LSA. 2) Remove the CONGESTION TLV from both documents. The updated documents (rev 08) have just been posted and account for these changes along with other comments that we received. Thanks. JP. On Sep 14, 2007, at 5:36 PM, Meral Shirazipour wrote: > Hi, > In draft draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-07 Section 4 Page 7, =20 > it is > mentioned: > =93 > No additional sub-TLVs will be added to the PCED TLV in the future. =20= > If a future > application requires advertising additional PCE information in IS-=20 > IS, this will > not be carried in the CAPABILITY TLV. > =93 > -Is there a technical reasoning behind this decision? > > -I would also change the last two words :=94 CAPABILITY TLV =93 to = =93IS-=20 > IS Router > Capability TLV ([IS-IS-CAP])=94 to avoid any confusion with the PCE-=20= > CAP-FLAGS > sub-TLV :) > > > > In draft draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-ospf-07 Section 4 Page 7, =20 > it is > mentioned: > =93 > No additional sub-TLVs will be added to the PCED TLV in the future. =20= > If a future > application requires advertising additional PCE information in =20 > OSPF, this will > not be carried in the Router Information LSA. > =94 > -Same question here. > > > Warm Regards, > Meral > > > > > > > > Selon Adrian Farrel : > >> Hi, >> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-=20 >> isis-07.txt >> has recently been posted. The last couple of revisions addressed =20 >> comments >> raised by the IESG and by the IGP working group chairs, etc. >> >> This is a call to you for a further review of the I-D. >> >> We'll run with a two week deadline to 28th September. >> >> Many thanks, >> Adrian >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pce mailing list >> Pce@lists.ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce --Apple-Mail-269--182892764 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Hi,

Some concerns were expressed = by several individuals,
and OSPF WG chairs about the potential size of the PCED = and more
recently issues were raised during IESG review because of = the dynamic
nature of the CONGESTION TLV carried within the PCED = TLV.

So the agreement we had was = to:
1) = Indicate in the document that no further sub-TLV will be added in = the=A0
future. Should there be a need to advertise more PCE = capability, this can
still be part of the PCEP session establishment phase. = *If* at some point,
there is a need to use the IGP to advertise more data, = then this should be
done using the GENINFO TLV = defined=A0draft-ginsberg-isis-genapp=A0
potentially using a different = Is-IS instance and by using a new
Opaque = LSA.
2) = Remove the CONGESTION TLV from both documents.=A0

The updated documents (rev 08) = have just been posted and account for=A0
these changes along with other = comments that we received.

Thanks.

JP.
=

On Sep 14, 2007, at 5:36 PM, Meral Shirazipour = wrote:

Hi,
=A0 =A0 In draft = draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-07 Section 4 Page 7, it is
mentioned:
=93
No additional sub-TLVs will be added to the PCED TLV = in the future. If a future
application = requires advertising additional PCE information in IS-IS, this = will
not be carried in the CAPABILITY = TLV.
=93
-Is = there a technical reasoning behind this decision?

-I would = also change the last two words :=94 CAPABILITY TLV =93 to =93IS-IS = Router
Capability TLV ([IS-IS-CAP])=94 = to avoid any confusion with the PCE-CAP-FLAGS
sub-TLV :)



=A0 =A0 In draft = draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-ospf-07 Section 4 Page 7, it is
mentioned:
=93
No additional sub-TLVs will be added to the PCED TLV = in the future. If a future
application = requires advertising additional PCE information in OSPF, this = will
not be carried in the Router = Information LSA.
=94
-Same = question here.


Warm = Regards,
Meral







Selon Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>:

Hi,

has recently been posted. The = last couple of revisions addressed comments
raised = by the IESG and by the IGP working group chairs, etc.

This is = a call to you for a further review of the I-D.

We'll = run with a two week deadline to 28th September.

Many = thanks,
Adrian




Pce mailing list






Pce mailing list
=

= --Apple-Mail-269--182892764-- --===============0399917870== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg --===============0399917870==-- From isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 25 11:26:27 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaCGA-00016d-OG; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:23:38 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaCG9-00011w-7i; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:23:37 -0400 Received: from exprod7og52.obsmtp.com ([64.18.2.159]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaCG4-0002ZH-Jh; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:23:33 -0400 Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) by exprod7ob52.obsmtp.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:23:18 PDT Received: from [172.26.200.79] ([172.26.200.79]) by emailsmtp55.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:23:18 -0700 Message-ID: <46F927E2.3030301@juniper.net> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:23:14 +0200 From: Hannes Gredler User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JP Vasseur Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Re: [Pce] Please comment on draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-07.txt References: <05da01c7f64d$6e7dc780$3901850a@your029b8cecfe> <1189805794.46eafee2b6808@www.imp.polymtl.ca> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Sep 2007 15:23:18.0458 (UTC) FILETIME=[000919A0:01C7FF88] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b1c41982e167b872076d0018e4e1dc3c Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org, Jean-Philippe Vasseur , pce@ietf.org, Acee Lindem , Meral Shirazipour , Abhay Roy , Jean-Louis Le Roux X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org hi jp, agreed as far as pce is concerned, one comment on the *If* section - i do not think that replacing a bloated TLV with another bloated TLV [genapp] will buy us anything. i.e. the size is not getting smaller ;-) [genapp] is primarily a vehicle for not running out of TLV codepoints for 'per-application' use. Given that the pced TLV is well structured and has a proper support for TLV nesting there is no need to use [genapp]. so at best a "may" is appropriate, certainly no "should". /hannes JP Vasseur wrote: > Hi, > > Some concerns were expressed by several individuals, > and OSPF WG chairs about the potential size of the PCED and more > recently issues were raised during IESG review because of the dynamic > nature of the CONGESTION TLV carried within the PCED TLV. > > So the agreement we had was to: > 1) Indicate in the document that no further sub-TLV will be added in the > future. Should there be a need to advertise more PCE capability, this can > still be part of the PCEP session establishment phase. *If* at some point, > there is a need to use the IGP to advertise more data, then this should be > done using the GENINFO TLV defined draft-ginsberg-isis-genapp > potentially using a different Is-IS instance and by using a new > Opaque LSA. > 2) Remove the CONGESTION TLV from both documents. > > The updated documents (rev 08) have just been posted and account for > these changes along with other comments that we received. > > Thanks. > > JP. > > On Sep 14, 2007, at 5:36 PM, Meral Shirazipour wrote: > >> Hi, >> In draft draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-07 Section 4 Page 7, it is >> mentioned: >> “ >> No additional sub-TLVs will be added to the PCED TLV in the future. If >> a future >> application requires advertising additional PCE information in IS-IS, >> this will >> not be carried in the CAPABILITY TLV. >> “ >> -Is there a technical reasoning behind this decision? >> >> -I would also change the last two words :” CAPABILITY TLV “ to “IS-IS >> Router >> Capability TLV ([IS-IS-CAP])” to avoid any confusion with the >> PCE-CAP-FLAGS >> sub-TLV :) >> >> >> >> In draft draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-ospf-07 Section 4 Page 7, it is >> mentioned: >> “ >> No additional sub-TLVs will be added to the PCED TLV in the future. If >> a future >> application requires advertising additional PCE information in OSPF, >> this will >> not be carried in the Router Information LSA. >> ” >> -Same question here. >> >> >> Warm Regards, >> Meral >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Selon Adrian Farrel >: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-07.txt >>> has recently been posted. The last couple of revisions addressed comments >>> raised by the IESG and by the IGP working group chairs, etc. >>> >>> This is a call to you for a further review of the I-D. >>> >>> We'll run with a two week deadline to 28th September. >>> >>> Many thanks, >>> Adrian >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pce mailing list >>> Pce@lists.ietf.org >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pce mailing list >> Pce@lists.ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Isis-wg mailing list > Isis-wg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 25 15:32:50 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaG7w-0000lw-LJ; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:31:24 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaG7v-0000le-GO; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:31:23 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaG7u-0002hg-LE; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:31:23 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.20,296,1186383600"; d="scan'208";a="527964339" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Sep 2007 12:31:22 -0700 Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l8PJVLvR013577; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:31:21 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l8PJV8ax027682; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:31:17 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-222.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.106]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:31:13 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] Re: [Pce] Please commenton draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-07.txt Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:31:42 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <46F927E2.3030301@juniper.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] Re: [Pce] Please commenton draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-07.txt thread-index: Acf/iPZc/zUnxsZ9QNmQPi/Adyqz2QAINTaA References: <05da01c7f64d$6e7dc780$3901850a@your029b8cecfe> <1189805794.46eafee2b6808@www.imp.polymtl.ca> <46F927E2.3030301@juniper.net> From: "Les Ginsberg \(ginsberg\)" To: "Hannes Gredler" , "Jean Philippe Vasseur \(jvasseur\)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Sep 2007 19:31:13.0661 (UTC) FILETIME=[A258F2D0:01C7FFAA] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=5265; t=1190748681; x=1191612681; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=ginsberg@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Les=20Ginsberg=20\(ginsberg\)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Isis-wg]=20Re=3A=20[Pce]=20Please=20commenton=09draf t-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-07.txt |Sender:=20; bh=Jg2KXTrkCblYBqmu/DdeFEHdAeqhtsU/EM+G2DSSHXk=; b=NlVk0XZZ7hF3LzfoYK9KJgmMEoF7EadEuWGNcVwS/fs4GMUIPcGCZsk3vLODWgp9Ey6XucII qIqe2ZvaGSCAN9V+nSnd+1JOXslnP1Bm6X7fBfYv2nt3T5wEAa9sRz9R; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=ginsberg@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ccfb4541e989aa743998098cd315d0fd Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org, Jean-Philippe Vasseur , pce@ietf.org, Jean-Louis Le Roux , Acee Lindem , Meral Shirazipour , "Abhay Roy \(akr\)" X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org Hannes - > -----Original Message----- > From: Hannes Gredler [mailto:hannes@juniper.net] > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 8:23 AM > To: Jean Philippe Vasseur (jvasseur) > Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org; Jean-Philippe Vasseur; pce@ietf.org; Acee Lindem; > Meral Shirazipour; Abhay Roy (akr); Jean-Louis Le Roux > Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Re: [Pce] Please commenton draft-ietf-pce-disco- > proto-isis-07.txt >=20 > hi jp, >=20 > agreed as far as pce is concerned, > one comment on the *If* section - >=20 > i do not think that replacing a bloated TLV with another > bloated TLV [genapp] will buy us anything. i.e. the > size is not getting smaller ;-) >=20 > [genapp] is primarily a vehicle for not running out of > TLV codepoints for 'per-application' use. >=20 > Given that the pced TLV is well structured and has a > proper support for TLV nesting there is no need to use > [genapp]. There is no "pced TLV" - there are only "pced subTLVs" in the context of the the CAPS TLV. The use of the CAPS TLV for application info is inappropriate - but as GENAPP was not defined when the PCE draft was written we have allowed it to be grandfathered in. But as JP has indicated the goal is that future extensions and/or new applications use GENAPP. More importantly, the more recent version of GENAPP emphasizes the need to separate application info which IS-IS graciously allows to use our well proven flooding mechanism from the information essential to the operation of the IS-IS protocol - which helps keep routing working. Hence the use of MI. Les >=20 > so at best a "may" is appropriate, certainly no "should". >=20 > /hannes >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > JP Vasseur wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Some concerns were expressed by several individuals, > > and OSPF WG chairs about the potential size of the PCED and more > > recently issues were raised during IESG review because of the dynamic > > nature of the CONGESTION TLV carried within the PCED TLV. > > > > So the agreement we had was to: > > 1) Indicate in the document that no further sub-TLV will be added in the > > future. Should there be a need to advertise more PCE capability, this > can > > still be part of the PCEP session establishment phase. *If* at some > point, > > there is a need to use the IGP to advertise more data, then this should > be > > done using the GENINFO TLV defined draft-ginsberg-isis-genapp > > potentially using a different Is-IS instance and by using a new > > Opaque LSA. > > 2) Remove the CONGESTION TLV from both documents. > > > > The updated documents (rev 08) have just been posted and account for > > these changes along with other comments that we received. > > > > Thanks. > > > > JP. > > > > On Sep 14, 2007, at 5:36 PM, Meral Shirazipour wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> In draft draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-07 Section 4 Page 7, it is > >> mentioned: > >> " > >> No additional sub-TLVs will be added to the PCED TLV in the future. If > >> a future > >> application requires advertising additional PCE information in IS-IS, > >> this will > >> not be carried in the CAPABILITY TLV. > >> " > >> -Is there a technical reasoning behind this decision? > >> > >> -I would also change the last two words :" CAPABILITY TLV " to "IS-IS > >> Router > >> Capability TLV ([IS-IS-CAP])" to avoid any confusion with the > >> PCE-CAP-FLAGS > >> sub-TLV :) > >> > >> > >> > >> In draft draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-ospf-07 Section 4 Page 7, it is > >> mentioned: > >> " > >> No additional sub-TLVs will be added to the PCED TLV in the future. If > >> a future > >> application requires advertising additional PCE information in OSPF, > >> this will > >> not be carried in the Router Information LSA. > >> " > >> -Same question here. > >> > >> > >> Warm Regards, > >> Meral > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Selon Adrian Farrel >: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis- > 07.txt > >>> has recently been posted. The last couple of revisions addressed > comments > >>> raised by the IESG and by the IGP working group chairs, etc. > >>> > >>> This is a call to you for a further review of the I-D. > >>> > >>> We'll run with a two week deadline to 28th September. > >>> > >>> Many thanks, > >>> Adrian > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Pce mailing list > >>> Pce@lists.ietf.org > >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Pce mailing list > >> Pce@lists.ietf.org > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Isis-wg mailing list > > Isis-wg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Isis-wg mailing list > Isis-wg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 26 18:04:11 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaexF-0007zq-W6; Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:02:02 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaexE-0007so-Ex; Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:02:00 -0400 Received: from bgp.nu ([64.27.28.76]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iaex3-00016J-Um; Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:01:50 -0400 Received: from localhost (bgp.nu [64.27.28.76]) by bgp.nu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2578B53E1ED; Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:01:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at bgp.nu Received: from bgp.nu ([64.27.28.76]) by localhost (bgp.nu [64.27.28.76]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id m21wkD+6NWOw; Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:01:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [172.16.13.200] (dsl093-003-111.det1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.3.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bgp.nu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63F7A53E1EC; Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:01:37 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) References: <1BE7AC0C-9229-4BC5-B968-74F8614D4A57@juniper.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <8711F57F-DAA0-44E9-A182-C944E484F2D5@bgp.nu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "John G. Scudder" Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:00:16 -0400 To: mpls@lists.ietf.org, ospf@ietf.org, isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 Cc: Subject: [Isis-wg] Fwd: Working Group Last Call for "Basic Specification for IP Fast-Reroute: Loop-free Alternates" X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org FYI for those not subscribed to rtgwg. --John Begin forwarded message: > From: "John G. Scudder" > Date: September 26, 2007 3:47:32 PM GMT-04:00 > To: rtgwg@ietf.org > Subject: Working Group Last Call for "Basic Specification for IP > Fast-Reroute: Loop-free Alternates" > > Folks, > > The authors have indicated they're ready for WGLC on "Basic > Specification for IP Fast-Reroute: Loop-free Alternates" (draft- > ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-09). You can access the draft at http:// > www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-09.txt. > > Please send comments to the list. The deadline for comments is > October 12. > > --John _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg