Subject: [Isis-wg] Advertising Generic Application Information in IS-IS

From: "Les Ginsberg \(ginsberg\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 15:48:36 -0800

Folks -

A new draft is now available:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ginsberg-isis-genapp-00.txt

Given the recent popularity in using IS-IS LSPs in support of
advertising of application information, we became concerned about a
variety issues related to such usage including:

   o Potential TLV type consumption
   o Inappropriate use of TLVs intended to carry protocol information
   o Inefficient encoding due to the use of nested levels of subTLVs
   o Optimal flooding behavior related to such information

This draft addresses all of those issues.

Your comments are invited.

   Les

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

---

From: Philip Christian <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:44:42 +0000

This seems closely related to draft-ietf-isis-experimental-tlv which is 
available here
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-experimental-tlv-05
I'm not quite sure what this new draft offers that the old one didn't, 
and in fact there is some good text in the old one that isn't covered in 
the new.

Regards, Philip Christian

---

From: "Les Ginsberg \(ginsberg\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:40:28 -0800

Philip -

I don't believe the two drafts are covering the same ground.

GENAPP was written to address real problems that have already been
encountered in public proposals that utilize IS-IS LSPs to flood
application information. GENAPP is a companion piece to 

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-caps-06.txt

Where CAPS was aimed at capabilities of a router, GENAPP is aimed at
applications which have no requirement to execute on a router. 

GENAPP information is specifically to be advertised in LSPs, utilizes
IDs/subTLV codepoints which are managed by IANA specifically for use in
the GENAPP TLV, and it is assumed that the functionality associated with
a given application is public and standardized and subject to review by
IS-IS-WG (though perhaps this last bit should be more explicitly stated
in the draft).

EXPTLV is granting private sandboxes to entities - hence the use of SMI
Private Enterprise Codes which are allocated for general use, not
specifically for use in IS-IS. There is no requirement that
functionality associated with a particular Enterprise Code need be
standardized. Indeed EXPTLV specifically states that such uses are NOT
required to be reviewed by IS-IS-WG. The EXPTLV may also be included in
IIHs or SNPs - which is specifically not allowed for GENAPP (or CAPS) -
and the format of GENAPP clearly includes elements which are not
appropriate for an IIH or SNP.

   Les

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Christian [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 1:45 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Advertising Generic Application Information in
IS-
> IS

---

From: Philip Christian <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:32:30 +0000

I can see the difference now that you say it.
In summary:-
genapp is how the IETF can enhance an application using IS-IS without 
burning a TLV
exptlv is how a private individual, company or other entity can enhance 
an application using IS-IS without burning a TLV

In fact I guess a vendor could actually play with some cool idea in the 
lab with exptlv and even trial it with some customers, file their patent 
:-), and then probably then standardise the feature in IS-IS WG with genapp

does that sound about right ?

if so then probably genapp should state this more clearly as I didn't 
understand it.

regards, Philip

Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
>> This seems closely related to draft-ietf-isis-experimental-tlv which
>>     
> is
>   
>> available here
>> and in fact there is some good text in the old one that isn't covered
>>     
> in
>   
>> the new.
>>
>>>    o Inappropriate use of TLVs intended to carry protocol
>>>       
> information
>

---

From: "Les Ginsberg \(ginsberg\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:47:36 -0800

Philip -

I think we are pretty much on the same page now.

In the next revision of the draft we can consider adding some language
that more clearly differentiates it from EXPTLV. Frankly, the
relationship to EXPTLV never came up before - perhaps in part because
EXPTLV seems to have dropped out of sight. (I started a separate thread
on that question.)

Thanx for your input.

   Les

> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 12:33 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: [email-masked]
IS-