Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] Re: Last Call: Routing IPv6 with IS-IS to Informat ional

From: "Martin, Christian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 12:25:14 -0400

Les, Tony,

I agree that attempting to drive IS-IS toward IETF standardization may be
problematic for the reasons stated.  However, the future of IS-IS may (or
may not) in fact hinge on its 'candidacy' for standardization, in that, as
corporations become increasingly concerned about things like security and
interoperability, they appear to be correspondingly concerned with things
like standardization or standardizability (sp?).  Does anyone foresee
IS-IS's current lack of standardization as something that will or may
diminish its value over time?  For example, in a future where IPv6 may
dominate the address structure of the Internet, will conservative providers
consider shifting to OSPFv3 out of a perception that it will have perhaps
greater longevity?  I know this doesn't seeem to be the pragmatic direction
that many will take, but things like the ability to encrypt OSPF data may
start to become a requirement from a business-level or even government-level
perspective.  I can envision federal RFPs that require ISPs to encrypt all
routing data on their networks.  Savvy security experts will scoff at
HMAC-MD5 in IS-IS as substandard to this requirement, and may direct their
clients or companies to choose providers that do OSPFv3 with IPSEC, for
example.

Just a thought.

Regards,
Chris

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tony Li [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 6:55 PM
>To: Les Ginsberg
>Cc: Noguchi Kay; [email-masked]
>Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] Re: Last Call: Routing IPv6 with IS-IS 
>to Informational
>
>
>
>There is certainly more of a struggle to make it a 'Standard', 
>so before anyone proposes to do it, I would suggest that we 
>contemplate the upside.  If any.
>
>OSPF is and will continue to be the official standard IGP of 
>the IETF and trying to make IS-IS documents into standards 
>will likely inflame the OSPF vs. IS-IS wars again.  And tick 
>off the ITU.
>
>Lotsa downside...
>
>Tony
>
>
>|    -----Original Message-----
>|    From: Les Ginsberg [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>|    Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 3:45 PM
>|    To: Tony Li
>|    Cc: Noguchi Kay; [email-masked]
>|    Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] Re: Last Call: Routing IPv6 with 
>|    IS-IS to Informational
>|    
>|    
>|    At 03:20 PM 5/28/2003 -0700, Tony Li wrote:
>|    
>|    
>|    >Same reason as always: we don't have change control over 
>IS-IS and
>|    >we don't want to give the impression that we do.  We 
>might be able
>|    >to get away with it for this particular draft, but 
>|    frankly, it doesn't
>|    >make a lot of difference one way or another...
>|    
>|    
>|    Sooo..., what is the position of the WG on 
>|    draft-zinin-ietf-jtc1-aggr-01.txt?? Under Section 3.1 the 
>|    IPV6 draft 
>|    certainly COULD follow the standards track. Is the WG 
>|    going to make a 
>|    calculated decision as to which drafts are worth following 
>|    the standards 
>|    track and which aren't? Are we leaving it to the 
>discretion of the 
>|    author(s)? Or are we simply saying "Thanx very much Alex, 
>|    but we don't 
>|    really want to do this work ever?"
>|    
>|        Les
>|    
>|    
>|    >Tony
>|    >
>|    >
>|    >|    -----Original Message-----
>|    >|    From: Noguchi Kay [mailto:[email-masked]]
>|    >|    Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 2:50 PM
>|    >|    To: [email-masked]
>|    >|    Subject: [Isis-wg] Re: Last Call: Routing IPv6 with IS-IS
>|    >|    to Informational
>|    >|
>|    >|
>|    >|    Hi all,
>|    >|
>|    >|    Maybe I didn't follow the discussion correctly but let me
>|    >|    ask you this.
>|    >|
>|    >|    What is the reason we make IPv6 with IS-IS draft as an
>|    >|    Informational draft,
>|    >|    not a Standard draft?
>|    >|
>|    >|    We already shipped softwares based on this draft and, at
>|    >|    least, I didn't see
>|    >|    any discussions about this on the mailing list.
>|    >|
>|    >|    Thank you,
>|    >|
>|    >|                                                         
>|          kay
>|    >|
>|    >|    At Tue, 27 May 2003 18:56:23 -0400,
>|    >|    The IESG wrote:
>|    >|    >
>|    >|    >
>|    >|    > The IESG has received a request from the IS-IS for 
>|    IP Internets
>|    >|    > Working Group to consider Routing IPv6 with IS-IS
>|    >|    > <draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-05.txt> as a Informational.
>|    >|    >
>|    >|    > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks,
>|    >|    and solicits
>|    >|    > final comments on this action.  Please send any 
>|    comments to the
>|    >|    > [email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by 2003-6-10.
>|    >|    >
>|    >|    > Files can be obtained via
>|    >|    > 
>|    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-05
>.txt
>>|    >
>>|    >
>>|    >
>>|    >
>>|    _______________________________________________
>>|    Isis-wg mailing list
>>|    [email-masked]
>>|    https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>>|    _______________________________________________
>>|    Isis-wg-external mailing list
>>|    [email-masked]
>>|    http://mailist.procket.com/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg-external
>>|
>>_______________________________________________
>>Isis-wg mailing list
>>[email-masked] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>
>_______________________________________________
>Isis-wg mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>