Subject: [L1vpn] Fw: DISCUSS/Gen-ART review: draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospf-auto-discovery

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 18:37:52 +0100

Hi,

Lou has posted an update to draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospf-auto-discovery designed to 
address the issues raised by the IESG review.

You can see the issues documented at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospf-auto-discovery

The email trail below shows the resolutions.

Thanks to Lou for long discussions and minor changes.

Cheers,
Adrian

> Lou says:
> I've posted an update, see 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospf-auto-discovery-06.txt. 
> Please let me know if you still have a DISCUSS issue.
>>>
>>> Lou says:
>>>The first paragraph of the overview section now reads:
>>>    This document provides such an auto-discovery mechanism using Open
>>>    Shortest Path First (OSPF) version 2.  Use of OSPF version 3 and
>>>    support for IPv6 are out of scope of this document and will be
>>>    defined separately.
>>>>
>>>>> Lou says:
>>>>> Sounds to me like we should continue *without* v6 support in
>>>>> this draft, and "plan when/where it [v6] is to be spec'ed".  I
>>>>> suggest we spec v6 ospf l1vpn in l1vpn (or ospf if wg has completed
>>>>> its charter).  I can put together a draft by Dublin...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave says:
>>>>>> OSPFv3 update is probably within weeks of finishing ... V3- TE ... 
>>>>>> not within months.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lou says:
>>>>>>> well, this *is* the reason we didn't include it in the first
>>>>>>> place ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We'll need to normatively reference OSPFv3 (http://www.ietf.org/
>>>>>>> internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-update-21.txt) and
>>>>>>> OPSFv3 TE
>>>>>>> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-
>>>>>>> traffic-11.txt).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What's the status of these?  (I thought they were advancing
>>>>>>>along.)  IMO if these aren't close to being passed to the RFC
>>>>>>>queue by the IESG we should leave our draft as is and circle back on 
>>>>>>>this once OSPFv3 is cooked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Dave says:
>>>>>>>>Note that your doc dependency tree will put an immediate hold on
>>>>>>>>this.  You will have considerable downrefs to normative
>>>>>>>>technology.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Lou says:
>>>>>>>>>Given the current state of the v3-TE document, this shouldn't
>>>>>>>>>be too bad.  I'll update and post a preview...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Adrian says:
>>>>>>>>>>If you can construct the appropriate TLV and field
>>>>>>>>>>interpretation, that would be good. This can be folded
>>>>>>>>>>in relatively easily as Pasi says (easier for me and Pasi
>>>>>>>>>>than for Lou :-).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Pasi says:
>>>>>>>>>>>To summarize, Adrian's point was that vendors don't currently
>>>>>>>>>>>ship L1VPN equipment that would use IPv6 for control plane (and 
>>>>>>>>>>>there are no public plans to do so in the near future), and
>>>>>>>>>>>even if we start using IPv6 for other things, L1 control plane
>>>>>>>>>>>won't be switching to IPv6 soon (since main benefits of IPv6
>>>>>>>>>>>are in quite different environments).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I don't disagree with any of this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>However, for most IETF protocols, saying that "we don't have
>>>>>>>>>>>plans to ship IPv6, and are happy with IPv4" wouldn't be a
>>>>>>>>>>>sufficient reason publish IPv4-only specs.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I do understand that routing area has been traditionally very
>>>>>>>>>>>conservative about standardizing something that's not already
>>>>>>>>>>>implemented (cf. RFC 1264 -- but that's obsolete). However,
>>>>>>>>>>>since it seems that adding IPv6 support here wouldn't be a big 
>>>>>>>>>>>job, I'd rather see it done now than later.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Lou says
>>>>>>>>>>>>I understand your point as a general position, and I agree
>>>>>>>>>>>>with it. The WG chair (Adrian) raised some points about this
>>>>>>>>>>>>specific case. How do you respond to his mail?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Pasi says:
>>>>>>>>>>>>We discussed the topic of IPv4-only protocols in yesterday's
>>>>>>>>>>>>IESG telechat, and I think the conclusion was that having IPv4- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>only features is not a good idea (except when the feature 
>>>>>>>>>>>>doesn't just make sense for IPv6).
>>>>>>>>>>>>We don't want to send the message that by
>>>>>>>>>>>>deploying IPv6, you lose functionality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>In some well-justified cases, it can be acceptable to specify
>>>>>>>>>>>>IPv4 and IPv6 cases in separate documents, but there needs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>be clear distinction between this, and just ignoring IPv6.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lou says:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I've put together a preview of an l1vpn draft update
>>>>>>>>>>>>>based on the recent e-mail discussion.  (BTW there were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>no responses to the last mails to Avri and Pasi.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Please review and let me know if you have any outstanding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>issues. To see a diff between the preview and the previous 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>version, see:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url1=http://to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>ols.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospf-auto- discovery-05.txt&ur
>>>>>>>>>>>>>l2> =http://labn.net/docs/draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospf-auto->
>>>>>>>>>>>>>discovery-06-Preview-A.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll post early next week if I don't hear anything back....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Russ says:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm pleased to see the discussion taking place. Please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>work with Dave and Ross to incorporate any appropriate RFC 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Editor notes.

_______________________________________________
L1vpn mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn