Subject: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-te-app-15.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 10:06:03 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.

        Title           : IS-IS TE Attributes per application
        Authors         : Les Ginsberg
                          Peter Psenak
                          Stefano Previdi
                          Wim Henderickx
                          John Drake
	Filename        : draft-ietf-isis-te-app-15.txt
	Pages           : 21
	Date            : 2020-06-11

Abstract:
   Existing traffic engineering related link attribute advertisements
   have been defined and are used in RSVP-TE deployments.  Since the
   original RSVP-TE use case was defined, additional applications (e.g.,
   Segment Routing Policy, Loop Free Alternate) that also make use of
   the link attribute advertisements have been defined . In cases where
   multiple applications wish to make use of these link attributes, the
   current advertisements do not support application specific values for
   a given attribute, nor do they support indication of which
   applications are using the advertised value for a given link.  This
   document introduces new link attribute advertisements that address
   both of these shortcomings.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-te-app/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-te-app-15
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-isis-te-app-15

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-isis-te-app-15

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/

---

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:16:01 +0000

Folks -

This update to the draft addresses comments from the following IESG reviewers:

Murray Kucherawy
Martin Duke
Rob Wilton
Roman Danyliw
Deborah Brungard
Benjamin Kaduk

It also includes grammatical corrections related to the use of "which/that".

A special thank you to Acee Lindem for his tireless efforts to improve my grammar.

  Les

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lsr <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of [email-masked]
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 10:06 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-te-app-15.txt
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 11:05:20 -0700

Hi Les,

I'm afraid I don't see how this revision resolves my DISCUSS point,
which is that Section 7.5 creates a registry under "Expert Review"
terms; BCP 26 pushes the point that such a registry definition should
include guidance to the Designated Expert about how to handle new
applications, but Section 7.5 doesn't.

On the other hand, Section 7.3 gets this right; note its last paragraph.

For that matter, BCP 26 recommends including a "Change Controller"
column, but neither registry created here does so.  Is that
intentional?

https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp26#section-4.5

-MSK

---

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 18:18:57 +0000

Murray -

You never replied to my response to your comments - otherwise we could have continued the discussion in that thread.

What I replied there on this point was:

[Les:] IS-IS registries are guided by RFC 7370 (referenced in Section 7 and in https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml  ) - which does provide guidance to the experts.
There is some additional guidance in Section 7.3 because we want codepoints in the existing "sub-TLV of TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141, 222, and 223" registry to be in sync with the new registry whenever possible.
For Section 7.5 there really isn’t anything else to say beyond what RFC 7370 says.

   Les

> From: Murray S. Kucherawy <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 11:05 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; Martin Duke <[email-masked]>; Rob Wilton
> (rwilton) <[email-masked]>; Roman Danyliw <[email-masked]>; Deborah
> Brungard <[email-masked]>; Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-te-app-15.txt
> 
> Hi Les,
>

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:28:10 -0700

Hi Les,

Sorry for missing that.  There's often a torrent of email right before
a telechat and this got lost in there.

> For Section 7.5 there really isn’t anything else to say beyond what RFC 7370 says.

Apologies, you're correct.  I didn't connect the text in Section 7
with 7.5 for some reason.  I think I was simply struck by the fact
that 7.3 was explicit while 7.5 wasn't.

I'll update my position now.  Thank you for setting me straight.

-MSK