Subject: Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions-05.txt

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:41:08 +0800

Authors,

I've a question on this draft. If I understand correctly you are making
allocations of code points from an already existing IANA registry.

Publishing codes come with the "risk" that someone think they are truly
allocated and implement using these code points.

Now what will you do if some document in the pipe allocate one of the
code-points you are allocating through the normal process? You will have
a code point deployed, that belongs to another protocol.

/Loa

On 2014-02-13 23:27, [email-masked] wrote:
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>
>
>          Title           : IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing
>          Authors         : Stefano Previdi
>                            Clarence Filsfils
>                            Ahmed Bashandy
>                            Hannes Gredler
>                            Stephane Litkowski
>                            Jeff Tantsura
> 	Filename        : draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions-05.txt
> 	Pages           : 27
> 	Date            : 2014-02-13
>
> Abstract:
>     Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end
>     paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of
>     topological sub-paths, called "segments".  These segments are
>     advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF).
>
>     This draft describes the necessary IS-IS extensions that need to be
>     introduced for Segment Routing.
>
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions/
>
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions-05
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions-05
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 09:41:18 +0000

Loa,

> allocated and implement using these code points.

Ideally, we'd like to benefit from RFC7120 which states:

  This memo describes the process for early allocation of code points
  by IANA from registries for which "Specification Required", "RFC
  Required", "IETF Review", or "Standards Action" policies apply.  This
  process can be used to alleviate the problem where code point
  allocation is needed to facilitate desired or required implementation
  and deployment experience prior to publication of an RFC, which would
  normally trigger code point allocation.  The procedures in this
  document are intended to apply only to IETF Stream documents.

So, terms such as "implementation" and "deployment" are used and knowing 
that:

. Segment Routing architecture as a large consensus among vendors 
   and operators
. Segment Routing protocol extensions have an even larger consensus 
   among vendors and operators since the protocol extensions required 
   for Segment Routing do also address requirements from other label 
   distribution mechanisms
. Segment Routing is being shipped by multiple interoperable vendors  
  (reports will follow shortly)
. Segment Routing is in deployment plans of several operators

I believe all conditions are met in order for us to benefit from RFC7120
and get early allocation code points.

This would allow the industry to move on with this new technology and  
IETF to still lead the innovation and standardization of it.

Thanks.
s.

> spring mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:47:33 +0100

Stefano,

While i agree to what you say about the consensus about the SPRING
architecture and that it would be great if you#d could benefit from
RFC 7120.

However, to allocate code points in existing register you have to go
through the 7120 procedures, and the request to allocate code points
early the requests need to come from wg-chair and AD's.

As far as I can you have not gone through that procedure. The code
points should be TBA until that is done.

/Loa

--

---

From: Hannes Gredler <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 18:49:22 +0100

loa,

quoting from rfc7120:

---   In protocol specifications documented in RFCs, there is often a need
   to allocate code points for various objects, messages, or other
   protocol entities so that implementations can interoperate.  Many of
   these code point spaces have registries handled by the Internet
   Assigned Number Authority (IANA).  Several IETF policies for IANA
   allocation of protocol parameters are described in  RFC 5226.
   Some of them, such as "First Come First Served" or
   "Expert Review", do not require a formal IETF action before the IANA
   performs allocation.  However, in situations where code points are a
   scarce resource and/or the IETF community has consensus to retain
   tight control of the registry content, policies such as "IETF Review"
   (formerly "IETF Consensus"), or "Standards Action" have been used.
   Such allocation policies present a problem in situations where
   implementation and/or deployment experience are desired or required
   before the document becomes an RFC.
---

couple of thoughts:

1. ISIS-WG code-point allocation is under 'expert review';
   Experts being 'Dave Ward' and 'Chris Hopps' - i.e. my read of
   the 7120 intro is that it does not apply here.

2. IGP WGs are these days 'low-maintenance', i.e. not many
   new protocols do contend for code-points.

3. ISIS-WG chairs are keeping an eye on their submitted I-Ds
   for potential clashes.

4. in that specific environment, as a WG-chair i do encourage
   authors to specify their code-points such that interop testing
   can be done. (my guess is that is better to document code-points
   early on, rather than standardize the 'informal-single-vendor-standard'
   in the eleventh hour.

thanks,

/hannes

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:03:34 +0100

Hannes, et.al.,

All of this are good arguments for doing an early allocation of code
points. My point is that this has not been done and that we now have
several documents that are doing allocation of code points without
coordinating with the IANA.

To allocate code points early you need to request that the wg chairs
bring this to the ADs and IANA. Process is simple but need to be done
before we claim that the code points are allocated.

/Loa

--

---

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:31:59 +0000

Hannes -

The requested code points are specified in Section 4 of the draft. Could we bring this thread to closure by having you (or one of the other co-authors) formally request that the code points specified in the draft be given early allocation by Dave/Chris?

I think that would address Loa's concern.
??

   Les

> -----Original Message-----
> From: spring [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 2:04 AM
> To: Hannes Gredler
> Cc: [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; Christian Hopps; [email-masked]; Stefano
> Previdi (sprevidi); [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing-
> extensions-05.txt
> 
> Hannes, et.al.,
>

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:43:34 +0100

Les,

Yes it would, but I think there are more drafts intended for the sping
working group that does the same thing.

/Loa

--

---

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:33:18 +0000

Loa -

You are correct of course. My reply was targeted specifically at IS-IS draft because the IS-IS TLV codepoints registry uses expert review and so is not covered by RFC 7120 (as pointed out by Hannes). The "process" is therefore simpler in this case and as Hannes is a co-author he has the ability to quickly close this issue for IS-IS.

The other drafts will need to follow RFC 7120 procedures.

   Les

> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 2:44 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Hannes Gredler
> > The requested code points are specified in Section 4 of the draft. Could we
> bring this thread to closure by having you (or one of the other co-authors)
> formally request that the code points specified in the draft be given early
> allocation by Dave/Chris?
> >

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:57:27 +0000

>working group that does the same thing.

Just a quick clarification given that this thread is in spring and not
isis (cc'd now).

The protocol extension drafts don't belong in spring.  The charter is
clear in that any modifications must take place is the WG that owns the
protocol.

I think it is not inappropriate to have this discussion in spring (or
maybe cc'ing spring) so that we're all on the same page..but it is clearly
an issue that isis (in this case) has to resolve.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

>> The requested code points are specified in Section 4 of the draft.
>>Could we bring this thread to closure by having you (or one of the other
>>co-authors) formally request that the code points specified in the draft
>>be given early allocation by Dave/Chris?
>>
>>>>>>>>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing
>>>>>>>>-
>>> extensions/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing
>>>>>>>>-
>>> extensions-05
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 12:45:45 +0100

Alvaro,

Yes you are right - the request for early allocation should go though
the isis wg; however I think it is partly a SPRING problem since
this has happened in other drafts also doing segment routing extensions
to one or the other protocol.

/Loa

--