Subject: [Lsr] WG Review: Link State Routing (lsr)

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 09:14:33 -0800

A new IETF WG has been proposed in the Routing Area. The IESG has not made
any determination yet. The following draft charter was submitted, and is
provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the
IESG mailing list ([email-masked]) by 2018-02-19.

Link State Routing (lsr)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Current status: Proposed WG

Chairs:
  Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
  Christian Hopps <[email-masked]>

Assigned Area Director:
  Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>

Routing Area Directors:
  Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
  Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
  Deborah Brungard <[email-masked]>

Mailing list:
  Address: [email-masked]
  To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
  Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/

Group page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/lsr/

Charter: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lsr/

The Link-State Routing (LSR) Working Group is chartered to document current
protocol implementation practices and improvements, protocol usage scenarios,
maintenance and extensions of the link-state interior gateway routing
protocols (IGPs) - specifically IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3.  The LSR Working
Group is formed by merging the isis and ospf WGs and will take on all their
existing adopted work at the time of chartering.

IS-IS is an IGP specified and standardized by ISO through ISO 10589:2002 and
additional RFC standards with extensions to support IP that has been deployed
in the Internet for decades.  For the IS-IS protocol, LSR-WG’s work is
focused on IP routing, currently based on the agreement in RFC 3563 with
ISO/JTC1/SC6. The LSR-WG will interact with other standards bodies that have
responsibility for standardizing IS-IS. LSR-WG will continue to support Layer
2 routing (for example TRILL work) as needed.

OSPFv2 [RFC 2328 and extensions], is an IGP that has been deployed in the
Internet for decades. OSPFv3 [RFC5340 and extensions] provides OSPF for IPv6
and IPv4 [RFC5838] which can be delivered over IPv6 or IPv4 [RFC 7949].

The LSR Working Group will generally manage its specific work items by
milestones agreed with the responsible Area Director.

In addition to ongoing maintenance, the following topics are specific
work-items for the WG.

1) Improve OSPF support for IPv6  and create at least parity with IPv4
functionality
    by adding OSPFv3 extensions using the OSPFv3 Extended LSAs.

2) Extensions needed for Segment Routing and associated architectural changes

3) YANG models for IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3 and extensions

4) Extensions for source-destination routing

5) Improvements to flooding (and other behaviors) to better support dense
meshed
   network topologies, such as are commonly used in data centers.

The Link-State Routing (LSR) Working Group will coordinate with other working
groups, such as RTGWG, SPRING, MPLS, TEAS, PCE, V6OPS, and 6MAN, to
understand the need for extensions and to confirm that the planned work meets
the needs and is compatible with IS-IS and/or OSPF from functional,
architectural and performance point of views.  LSR-WG will coordinate with
CCAMP, TEAS, and BIER on their extensions to the LSR IGPs as applicable to
LSR protocol operation and scale.  LSR-WG should coordinate with other WGs as
needed.

Milestones:

  Jul 2018 - OSPF YANG Model to IESG

  Jul 2018 - ISIS YANG model to IESG

  Jul 2018 - IS-IS Reverse Metric to IESG

  Jul 2018 - IS-IS Segment Routing MSD to IESG

  Nov 2018 - OSPFv3 SR to IESG

  Nov 2018 - OSPFv2 Attribute Agility

  Mar 2019 - OSPF Segment Routing YANG Model

  Mar 2019 - IS-IS Segment Routing SR YANG Model

  Jul 2019 - OSPFv3 Duall Stack (single instance)

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 16:25:33 +0200

The adopted documents for both WGs needs to be sorted in this charter or
referenced. It does not mention the milestones for the adopted documents by
the separated WG, how will the process be, is there merging of documents
also, not mentioned, please clarify the approach,

The reason for merging is not mentioned I think, the proposal lacks such
clear reason or why was not merged before and now is the right time to
merge? IMO it is needed in this charter.

Is the WGs OSPF and ISIS closed after activating this LSR WG? yes it says
merging but not mentioned closing the WGs. IMHO, it is important to
clarifying this issue.

AB