Subject: [Isis-wg] Requesting WG Adoption of ISIS Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions

From: Spencer Giacalone <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:16:28 -0400

Hello Dave and Chris,

I’d like to respectfully request that the ISIS WG consider ISIS TE
Metric Extensions (TE ME) for adoption. My reasons are that:

-As I understand, the questions at ISIS WG 86 where around extending
the draft- showing interest

-The ISIS TE ME draft has been around for some time

-There is a good deal of interest in OSPF TE ME. ISIS TE ME is
basically a sister draft

-That many of the same questions have been asked for both OSPF and
ISIS TE Metric Extensions (by Curtis and others). These questions have
been discussed for OSPF TE ME, and solutions have been agreed by the
authors and people who had the concerns. As per Acee, we will ask for
last call after posting another version of the OSPF TE ME draft with
these changes. In other words, OSPF and ISIS TE ME are very similar,
and OSPF TE ME is moving forward.

-It’s also worth nothing that other working groups, such as PCE are
developing drafts based on these drafts.
 Regards,

Spence

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:58:28 -0400

In message <CAONEGYPz283rVcOgRgRAy6AXXLkzDeukEvQ4jhi=[email-masked]>
Spencer Giacalone writes:
 
> Hello Dave and Chris,
>  
> I'd like to respectfully request that the ISIS WG consider ISIS TE
> -It's also worth nothing that other working groups, such as PCE are

Spence,

It would be better to make any WGLC request on OSPF after updating the
document since there was agreement to change it.

There is clearly interest.  Maybe it would also have been better to
update the document in ISIS as well before making this request.  But
regardless of that, I support making this a WG document.  There is
agreement to make changes but to be accepted as a WG draft the
document doesn't have to be perfect when accepted as a WG item.

Curtis

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:21:38 +0000

On 3/21/13 8:58 PM, "Curtis Villamizar" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>In message 
><CAONEGYPz283rVcOgRgRAy6AXXLkzDeukEvQ4jhi=[email-masked]>

Hi Curtis (almost top posted ;^),

We will await the updated version in the OSPF WG prior to any progression.
Thanks,
Acee

>_______________________________________________
>Isis-wg mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

---

From: Spencer Giacalone <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:56:19 -0400

Acee,

So we are not going to adopt ISIS TE ME until the new rev of OSPF TE ME?

Just to remind- OSPF TE ME is (hopefully) pending last call). ISIS TE
ME has not yet been adopted by the ISIS WG.

Are we talking about the same things?

Spence

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:55:26 +0000

Spencer, 
We are certainly not going to WGLC the current version of the OSPF TE Extensions draft when we know there are additional requirements that will be covered in the ISIS draft. ISIS WG adoption is independent of the OSPF draft. 
Thanks,
Acee

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 20:53:14 +0000

Acee, 

The requirements for both drafts are the same. We just need to rev OSPF and update ISIS to match OSPF. They are parallel drafts. Can we not rev OSPF and WGLC it independent of ISIS- or do you expect that comments will come out in ISIS that we will want to reflect back into OSPF?

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 3:55 PM
To: Spencer Giacalone
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Alia Atlas; <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Requesting WG Adoption of ISIS Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions

Spencer,

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 21:17:52 +0000

> The requirements for both drafts are the same. We just need to rev OSPF and update ISIS to match OSPF. They are parallel drafts. Can we not rev OSPF and WGLC it independent of ISIS- or do you expec…

Yes - however, since the information content is identical, we should assure there are no significant content issues before proceeding in either WG. 

Thanks,
Acee