Re: [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions
Alia Atlas <[email protected]> Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:08:35 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.isis |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAG4d1rdtY2aCimefpdWQxGkEDnafTHv2V+ec4Mn645E40JKWzA@mail.gmail.com> |
--===============7141866108228710326== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c04f602d49c2505659b496c" --94eb2c04f602d49c2505659b496c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Ice, I forgot to add - of course - that I understand you have already stated that you don't have any technical objections to the current status. Regards, Alia On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 8:58 PM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > Ice, > > At this point in the process, it would be necessary to make an > overwhelming technical argument - that would sway almost the whole > WG to your perspective. > > I see you saying that you have a personal preference for having the IGP > Algorithm registry also be used for the BAR registry. While > I do, of course, respect where you have technical expertise, my response - > particularly from a process perspective - is "that's nice". > > Regards, > Alia > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 8:15 PM, IJsbrand Wijnands <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Alia, >> >> > An architectural argument can't also limit itself to the drafts in the >> title. >> > >> > If it sounded like the IANA registry was suggested as separate for BIER >> OSPF and BIER ISIS, then your attempt to reframe the conversation might be >> reasonable. Let me clarify - I see no current reason for an OSPF BAR >> registry and an ISIS BAR registry; it would just be a BAR registry. Perhaps >> > that clarification is a good reason to get the IANA registry included >> in the next update? >> >> There is no reason for an individual BIER OSPF and BIER ISIS registry. >> The point is to align with what ever ISIS and OSPF are using to identify >> the algorithm. >> >> > The routing layer is separate from the BIER layer. The BAR is for the >> BIER layer. >> >> The underlay is separate from the BIER layer, and each underlay can carry >> BIER specific information that is needed for for BIER to make the selection. >> >> Thx, >> >> Ice. >> >> > --94eb2c04f602d49c2505659b496c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr">Ice,<div><br></div><div>I forgot to add - of course - that= I understand you have already stated that you don't have any technical= objections to the current status.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><= div>Alia</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quot= e">On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 8:58 PM, Alia Atlas <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a hre= f=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>><= /span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8= ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Ice,<div><= br></div><div>At this point in the process, it would be necessary to make a= n overwhelming technical argument - that would sway almost the whole</div><= div>WG to your perspective.</div><div><br></div><div>I see you saying that = you have a personal preference for having the IGP Algorithm registry also b= e used for the BAR registry.=C2=A0 =C2=A0While</div><div>I do, of course, r= espect where you have technical expertise, my response - particularly from = a process perspective - is "that's nice".</div><div><br></div= ><div>Regards,</div><div>Alia</div></div><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class= =3D"h5"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, F= eb 19, 2018 at 8:15 PM, IJsbrand Wijnands <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"= mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>></span> wrote:= <br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-lef= t:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Alia,<br> <span><br> > An architectural argument can't also limit itself to the drafts in= the title.<br> ><br> > If it sounded like the IANA registry was suggested as separate for BIE= R OSPF=C2=A0 and BIER ISIS, then your attempt to reframe the conversation m= ight be reasonable.=C2=A0 Let me clarify - I see no current reason for an O= SPF BAR registry and an ISIS BAR registry; it would just be a BAR registry.= =C2=A0 Perhaps<br> > that clarification is a good reason to get the IANA registry included = in the next update?<br> <br> </span>There is no reason for an individual BIER OSPF and BIER ISIS registr= y. The point is to align with what ever ISIS and OSPF are using to identify= the algorithm.<br> <span><br> > The routing layer is separate from the BIER layer.=C2=A0 The BAR is fo= r the BIER layer.<br> <br> </span>The underlay is separate from the BIER layer, and each underlay can = carry BIER specific information that is needed for for BIER to make the sel= ection.<br> <br> Thx,<br> <br> Ice.<br> <br> </blockquote></div><br></div> </div></div></blockquote></div><br></div> --94eb2c04f602d49c2505659b496c-- --===============7141866108228710326== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg --===============7141866108228710326==--