Subject: [Isis-wg] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 08:44:43 -0700

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The main motivation (from the Introduction) for this extension seems to
be to provide information to "entities external to IS-IS such as Path
Computation Elements".  I would like to see some discussion related to
the "interface" with these external entities.  [Note: I am not asking for
a comparison with other potential solutions like BGP-LS.]  I would also
like to see the conversation with the OPS DIR reviewer reflected in the
document.

I also support the DISCUSS points about the Security Considerations.

About other potential or protocol agnostic solutions...  I read the
related discussion [1] that took place before the WG adoption of the
document, and trust that the subsequent adoption and WGLC reflect the
consensus of the WG.  As has been put in evidence by the development of
multiple routing protocols and other solutions, one size doesn't always
fit all.

[1]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/cK6dBtjvFZgNnZsQGZBgrpGG8jc/?qid=0a77495659ebc27956fe54d200bf3f33