Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8294 (7255)

Hi Robert, From: Robert Raszuk Date: Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 8:25 AM To: t petch Cc: RFC Errata System , Acee Lindem , Christian Hopps , "lber...@labn.net" , Alvaro Retana , John Scudder , "andrew-i...@liquid.tech" , Jeff Tantsura , "jh...@juniper.net" , Routing WG Subject: Re:

Re: Question after KIRA presentation in RTGWG session

Hi Roland, Thanks for the clarification. Acee On 11/12/22, 10:43 AM, "Bless, Roland (TM)" wrote: Hi Acee, I just reviewed the video recording of the RTGWG session, because my colleague told me that we probably have talked past each other... :-) Here is a small

Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-00.txt

This is the WG group version of the VRRPv3 BIS draft. Please see section 1.1 for the differences from RFC 5798. The is the version that will be presented in Thursday's RTG WG meeting. Thanks, Acee On 7/25/22, 12:21 AM, "internet-dra...@ietf.org" wrote: A new version of I-D,

Re: Closed Re: Working Group Adoption Call for draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-11

Thanks – I will publish when the window opens. The draft has some updates so please defer your reviews. Thanks, Acee From: rtgwg on behalf of Yingzhen Qu Date: Monday, July 18, 2022 at 4:15 PM To: Routing WG Subject: Closed Re: Working Group Adoption Call for

Re: Working Group Adoption Call for draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-11

Hi Donald, From: rtgwg on behalf of Donald Eastlake Date: Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 2:16 PM To: Dhruv Dhody Cc: Routing WG Subject: Re: Working Group Adoption Call for draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-11 I support adoption. I think the Abstract should be trimmed down a bit. It is very

Re: Working Group Adoption Call for draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-11

Hi Dhruv, From: rtgwg on behalf of Dhruv Dhody Date: Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 9:07 AM To: Yingzhen Qu Cc: Routing WG Subject: Re: Working Group Adoption Call for draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-11 Hi, I support adoption. Now that we are doing bis, could we improve the IANA section

Re: New Version Notification for draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-11.txt

Hi Jeff, Yingzhen, If there is space on the IETF 114 agenda, I'd like to give an update on this draft. Thanks, Acee - "Breaker of Chains" On 6/30/22, 4:54 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote: Hi Yingzhen, Jeff, We should be good for making this a WG draft now.

Re: Working Group Adoption Call for draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-11

I reiterate that I’m not aware of any IPR other than those disclosed for RFC 5798 and its successors. Thanks, Acee From: "Aditya Dogra (addogra)" Date: Friday, July 1, 2022 at 2:52 AM To: Yingzhen Qu , Routing WG , rtgwg-chairs , Acee Lindem Subject: Re: Working Group Adoption Call for

FW: New Version Notification for draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-11.txt

Hi Yingzhen, Jeff, We should be good for making this a WG draft now. Thanks, Acee On 6/30/22, 4:52 PM, "internet-dra...@ietf.org" wrote: A new version of I-D, draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-11.txt has been successfully submitted by Acee Lindem and posted to the IETF

Re: WG Adoption Call for draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis

e accepted. Yes – I will add the part about unsolicited NAs. I’ll also discuss with Aditya as to what our IOS-XE implementation does. Thanks, Acee Keep safe; Pascal From: Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: mercredi 13 avril 2022 17:01 To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) ; draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis...

Re: WG Adoption Call for draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis

Hi Pascal, Thanks for your support and comments. See inline. From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 3:40 AM To: "draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis@ietf.org" , rtgwg-chairs Cc: Routing WG Subject: RE: WG Adoption Call for

Re: New Version Notification for draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-07.txt

This version of the draft includes a section listing the differences from RFC 5798 and removes the apendicies describing legacy technologies. Acee On 4/12/22, 2:03 PM, "internet-dra...@ietf.org" wrote: A new version of I-D, draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-07.txt has been

Re: WG Adoption Call for draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis

Hi Routing WG, We had a lot more support at the IETF 113 RTGWG session for VRRP to use inclusive language, i.e., no longer refer to the “Master” or “Master Router”. Please reiterate your support on this list. Thanks, Acee From: rtgwg on behalf of Yingzhen Qu Date: Thursday, April 7, 2022 at

Re: New Version Notification for draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-06.txt

Gyan On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 2:33 PM Acee Lindem (acee) mailto:a...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi Gyan, From: Gyan Mishra mailto:hayabusa...@gmail.com>> Date: Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 2:45 AM To: Acee Lindem mailto:a...@cisco.com>> Cc: Routing WG mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>>, rtgwg-

Re: WG Adoption Call for draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis

As co-author, I support WG adoption. There is no new IPR for this draft but it should inherit all the IPR from RFC 5798. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft=draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec Acee From: rtgwg on behalf of Yingzhen Qu Date: Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:27 PM To:

Re: New Version Notification for draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-06.txt

Ring: RFC 2470 How do others feel? Thanks, Acee Kind Regards Gyan On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 4:48 PM Acee Lindem (acee) mailto:40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Chairs, This is the version for which I'd like to request WG adoption. I believe now I have not only changed the termi

Re: New Version Notification for draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-06.txt

Chairs, This is the version for which I'd like to request WG adoption. I believe now I have not only changed the terminology to be inclusive but made it significantly more consistent throughout the document. I've also reworded to avoid the usage of "black hole" for an unreachable destination.

FW: New Version Notification for draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-04.txt

Hi Sasha, Stewart, This version expands the term "Active" to "Active router" or "Active status" and the term "Backup" to "Backup router" or "Backup state". This version also includes changes to remove xml2rfc warnings and to use python3 (since the latest version of macOS doesn't include python

Re: [EXTERNAL] Inclusive language

BTW, I did the same for where "Backup" was used a noun. However, there were much fewer of these. Thanks, Acee On 3/22/22, 10:35 AM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote: Hi Sasha, Stewart, Actually, I don't like the inconsistency as there are instances

Re: [EXTERNAL] Inclusive language

Hi Sasha, Stewart, Actually, I don't like the inconsistency as there are instances of both "the Active..." and "the Active router...". I chose the latter since the concise option where "Active" is used as a noun has caused some confusion. Thanks, Acee On

Re: [EXTERNAL] Inclusive language

Sasha, Stewart, On 3/22/22, 9:02 AM, "Alexander Vainshtein" wrote: Stewart, Lots of thanks for a prompt and very useful response! Regards, Sasha Office: +972-39266302 Cell: +972-549266302 Email: alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com -Original

Re: New Version Notification for draft-miao-rtgwg-hpccplus-00.txt

What is your point? The fact that your draft is orthogonal to a specific transport doesn’t mean it isn’t applicable to the transport layer and its attendant mechanisms. It obviously belongs there and not in routing. Thanks, Acee From: "Miao, Rui" Reply-To: "Miao, Rui" Date: Tuesday, March 15,

Re: New Version Notification for draft-miao-rtgwg-hpccplus-00.txt

Hi Rui, Ok – I don’t know that the fact the telemetry which is a byproduct of the congestion control can be used as TE path selection criteria makes this applicable to the Routing Area. That is a real stretch…. Independent of specific transports, congestion control is a transport problem.

Re: RFC5798bis (VRRPv3) work

But no terminology changes – just some things that were missed. From: Acee Lindem Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 4:09 PM To: Greg Mirsky , "draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798...@ietf.org" , Routing WG Subject: Re: RFC5798bis (VRRPv3) work Thanks Greg – I have an update to the RFC 5798 BIS

Re: RFC5798bis (VRRPv3) work

Thanks Greg – I have an update to the RFC 5798 BIS draft once the gate opens as well. From: Greg Mirsky Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 4:05 PM To: "draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798...@ietf.org" , Routing WG Subject: RFC5798bis (VRRPv3) work Resent-From: Resent-To: Acee Lindem , ,

Re: New Version Notification for draft-miao-rtgwg-hpccplus-00.txt

Why is this draft in the Routing WG? This work is more applicable to the Transport or Internet Area. Acee From: rtgwg on behalf of "Miao, Rui" Reply-To: "Miao, Rui" Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 2:42 PM To: Routing WG Subject: Fw: New Version Notification for

Re: RTGWG IETF 113 Slot Requests

Hi Yingzhen, We are doing a BIS on RFC 5798 with being the main motivation being usage of inclusive language, i.e., “Master” changed to “Active”. Can I get 10 minutes on the agenda? https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis/ Thanks, Acee From: rtgwg on behalf of

Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9067 (6844)

This is a legitimate problem for 0.0.0.0/0 given that all components of a list key are required. In the case of a prefix-list, the prefix and mask length limits are all part of the key and, hence, required. It will need to be fixed in a BIS version or augmentation allowing separate list

Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9067 (6845)

This is a rather subjective comment since at this YANG data node is, in fact, a list. There are many models that follow this format even it seems a bit verbose in the xml examples. Also, it is a moot point since changing this would be a non-backward compatible YANG change. Please reject this

Re: draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model default reject-route

Hi Kris, I agree with your analysis and proposal. Do others have comment? If not, we should remove during AUTH48 (Chris Smiley copied). Thanks, Acee On 9/17/21, 10:55 AM, "rtgwg on behalf of Kris Lambrechts" wrote: Hi, I have been working on an implementation of

Re: A virtual "interim" on Evolving Routing Security in the Internet

Internet Yes, looks like an interesting area to be discussed. I am looking forward for this interim. Based on Acee’s note, I would put at 8 am PST in my calendar  You better update your calendar – it is 8 AM PDT on 9/30/21…  Acee Regards, Kausik From: rtgwg On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)

Re: A virtual "interim" on Evolving Routing Security in the Internet

remain fixed. This URL can be a great comfort... https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20210930T15=1440=tz_pt=tz_et=tz_bst=tz_cest=tz_cst-china Cheers, Adrian -Original Message----- From: Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: 16 September 2021 14:3

Re: A virtual "interim" on Evolving Routing Security in the Internet

Looks like an interesting agenda. I put it on my calendar - 10:00 AM EDT on 9/30. On 9/16/21, 6:19 AM, "rtgwg on behalf of Adrian Farrel" wrote: Hi, We've put together a small workshop on Evolving Routing Security in the Internet to be held on Thursday 30th September at 3pm UTC

Re: Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-30: (with COMMENT)

h COMMENT) I think the BCP 14 citation in the module itself is fine, and probably even necessary. It's the prose in the document itself where you could get rid of it. But again, up to you. -MSK On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 1:50 PM Acee Lindem (acee) mailto:a...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi Murray, On

Re: Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-30: (with COMMENT)

Hi Murray, On 8/12/21, 3:14 AM, "Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker" wrote: Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-30: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses

Re: John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-30: (with COMMENT)

Hi John, On 8/11/21, 9:11 PM, "John Scudder via Datatracker" wrote: John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-30: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-30.txt

Routing WG, This version addresses comments from Routing Directorate and YANG doctors reviews, as well as, WG last call comments. Non-editorial changes include: 1. Removal of references to YANG interface drafts in order to match on specific VLANs. These models haven't moved forward in

Re: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-29

The values for metric-types and route-level aren't likely to be changed very often and we have made them identities so that they can easily be augmented. Thanks, Acee On 7/30/21, 7:02 AM, "tom petch" wrote: From: rtgwg on behalf of Yingzhen Qu Sent: 30 July 2021 06:18 Hi

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-29.txt

In this version, we removed the reference to the VLAN sub-interface for interface matching. This was due to the dependencies on: [INTF-EXT-YANG] Wilton, R., Ball, D., tapsi...@cisco.com, t., and S. Sivaraj,, "Common Interface Extension YANG Data Models",

Re: Document Shepherd feedback on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model

+Rob for ietf-if-extensions.yang YANG validation warning…. Thanks, Acee From: Yingzhen Qu Date: Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 5:21 PM To: Chris Bowers Cc: Routing WG , "draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-mo...@ietf.org" , rtgwg-chairs Subject: Re: Document Shepherd feedback on

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-12

I support publication. Looks like mainly editorial changes since the last time it was WG last called. Thanks, Acee From: rtgwg on behalf of Jeff Tantsura Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 11:26 PM To: Routing WG Cc: Routing WG , "draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-...@ietf.org" Subject: WGLC for

Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model

Hi Tom, There can only be one "set-metric" action per statement and the statements are order-by-user. Hence, I don't see how there is ambiguity. Thanks, Acee On 10/5/20, 7:21 AM, "tom petch" wrote: From: Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: 18 September 2020 21:02

Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model

Hi Tom, I went ahead and fixed and ran it through a spell-checker. Thanks, Acee On 9/17/20, 6:35 AM, "tom petch" wrote: From: Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: 16 September 2020 18:47 Hi Tom, et al, I have clarified the usage of policy chain and added the normativ

Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model

Hi Tom, et al, I have clarified the usage of policy chain and added the normative language in the YANG description constraints - which I believe is the right approach. Thanks, Acee On 9/16/20, 12:33 PM, "tom petch" wrote: From: Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: 16 September

Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model

Hi Tom, On 9/16/20, 6:01 AM, "tom petch" wrote: From: Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: 15 September 2020 21:37 Hi Tom, Chris, et al, I've moved the non-normative sections to appendixes in the -22 version. Also, at the risk of being redundant, I included an explicit

Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model

Hi Tom, Chris, et al, I've moved the non-normative sections to appendixes in the -22 version. Also, at the risk of being redundant, I included an explicit reference for the unpopular BGP sub-module prefixes. Thanks Acee On 9/10/20, 6:10 PM, "rtgwg on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)&quo

Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model

Hi Tom, As previously noted, the BGP model augments the routing-policy model and not the other way around. Hence, resolution of BGP model issues is not a prerequisite for publication of this YANG model. AFAIK, none of the open issues with the BGP model are related to its augmentation of the

Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model

Hi Tom, On 9/4/20, 10:06 AM, "rtgwg on behalf of tom petch" wrote: From: rtgwg on behalf of Chris Bowers Sent: 03 September 2020 21:50 RTGWG, An objection has been raised with respect to requesting publication of draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model at this time. The main

Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model

Hi Chris, I agree and will make the changes tomorrow. Thanks, Acee From: rtgwg on behalf of Chris Bowers Date: Thursday, September 3, 2020 at 4:50 PM To: Routing WG , rtgwg-chairs Subject: Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model RTGWG, An objection has been raised with respect to

Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model

Hi Tom, See inline. On 8/19/20, 7:47 AM, "rtgwg on behalf of tom petch" wrote: From: rtgwg on behalf of Chris Bowers Sent: 17 August 2020 22:45 RTGWG, This email starts the two week WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model. Please indicate support for, or

Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model

All, As a co-author, I support publication I am not aware of any IPR. Thanks, Acee From: rtgwg on behalf of Chris Bowers Date: Monday, August 17, 2020 at 5:49 PM To: Routing WG , rtgwg-chairs Subject: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model RTGWG, This email starts the two week

Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-16

ot;John G. Scudder" Cc: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , Yingzhen Qu , "rtg-...@ietf.org" , "rtg-...@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model@ietf.org" , RTGWG Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-16 On

Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-16

Hi John, Yingzhen, Co-authors, et al, With respect to #16, I think we should explicitly state that it is a most specific prefix match within the prefix-set. Unfortunately, that is not enough since the mask range limits are also a part of the prefix-set list key: container prefixes

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-17.txt

Hi Tom, On 7/6/20, 7:49 AM, "rtgwg on behalf of tom petch" wrote: From: rtgwg on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.org Sent: 06 July 2020 01:19 I think that the reference to bgp-model in this I-D has to be Normative. Both in the example of how the YANG might be used by a

Re: proposed example text and question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model

..@futurewei.com>> wrote: Hi Acee and Chris, I will change the name in next revision with other comments. Thanks, Yingzhen From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" mailto:a...@cisco.com>> Date: Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 4:21 PM To: Yingzhen Qu mailto:yingzhen...@futurewei.com>>

Re: proposed example text and question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model

Hi Yingzhen, Meant to reply earlier. Thanks for responding. From: Yingzhen Qu Date: Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 6:59 PM To: Chris Bowers , "draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-mo...@ietf.org" , Routing WG Subject: Re: proposed example text and question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model Resent-From:

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-15

Hi Tom, See inline. On 6/3/20, 7:04 AM, "rtgwg on behalf of t petch" wrote: Looking some more, at -15: The choice of OSPF identity puzzles me I would expect a base OSPF identity to be useful from which all other OSPF then derive I am not familiar with NSSA T1 and T2 -

Removal of mixed prefix-set type

Version -14 addresses most of Tom Petch's comments. The authors would like to remove the mixed type of prefix-set. It doesn't seem that any implementations mix IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes in the same set. Consequently, I really don't see any advantage and the semantics would have to be to ignore

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-13

Hi Tom, On 6/1/20, 6:53 AM, "rtgwg on behalf of t petch" wrote: I have some doubts about this I-D. Hopefully, I can assuage your doubts. -01 had four authors; -13 has four authors. None are the same yet much of the text in the I-D is the same. As excellent observation - the

Re: Prefix-set in policy yang

Hi Asky, No – it doesn’t match the Cisco prefix-list semantics in this respect. We started with the OpenConfig routing policy model and hence the restriction of not being able to interleave permit and deny rules in the same prefix-set. So, one can implement the OpenConfig prefix-sets with Cisco

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-qos-model-01.txt

The prefixes should probably include "qos-" and an abbreviated model descriptor. For example, qos-class, qos-actn, qos-pol, qos-trgt, qos-q-pol, qos-sched, and qos-diffsrv. Thanks, Acee On 4/15/20, 7:17 AM, "rtgwg on behalf of t petch" wrote: Aseem I would like you to think more

Re: Add network instance name on interface, IPv4, IPv6

Hi Qin, From: Qin Wu Date: Monday, August 5, 2019 at 10:11 AM To: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model@ietf.org" Cc: Routing WG , "net...@ietf.org" , "Wangleilei (DOPRA SSP)" Subject: Add network instance name on interface, IPv4, IPv6 Resent-From: Resent-To: , Christian Hopps , Acee Lindem ,

Re: Some comments on draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp-01.txt

HI Fred, On 5/28/19, 9:59 AM, "Templin (US), Fred L" wrote: Hi Acee, > -Original Message- > From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 1:40 PM > To: Templin (US), Fred L ; Nick Slabakov ; rtgwg@ietf

Re: Some comments on draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp-01.txt

On 5/21/19, 12:53 PM, "rtgwg on behalf of Templin (US), Fred L" wrote: Nick, Thank you for your comments, and sorry for the delayed response: > -Original Message- > From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nick Slabakov > Sent: Monday,

Re: Regarding dependency to type "routing-instance-ref"

The GRE Model has expired and needs to be updated - https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-liu-intarea-gre-tunnel-yang-00.txt I would think it would reference a network instance similar to a regular interface is done in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8529.txt Good Luck, Acee From: "PATNA

Re: [netmod] Doubts about static routes in RFC 8349

Hi Martin, On 4/3/19, 7:57 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" wrote: "Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote: > Hi Sasha, > > On 4/3/19, 7:27 AM, "Alexander Vainshtein" > wrote: > > Martin, > Lots of thanks for a promp

Re: Doubts about static routes in RFC 8349 (was: Doubts about static routes in RFC 8022)

pper that splits such a list into multiple 4292-compliant routes (simpler than merge, but still non-trivial IMHO). Regards, Sasha Office: +972-39266302 Cell: +972-549266302 Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com From: Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 7:45 PM To: Alexander

Re: [netmod] Doubts about static routes in RFC 8349

Hi Sasha, On 4/3/19, 7:27 AM, "Alexander Vainshtein" wrote: Martin, Lots of thanks for a prompt response. My reading of your response is that, if you need multiple static routes with the same destination but different next hops, you configure them as a single route with

Re: Doubts about static routes in RFC 8349 (was: Doubts about static routes in RFC 8022)

Hi Sasha, You are correct that there is no per-next-hop preference in the current model. However, this is included in the augmentation in draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend. Thanks, Acee From: Alexander Vainshtein Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 at 9:53 AM To: Acee Lindem , Ladislav Lhotka Cc:

Re: WG Adoption for "RIB YANG Data Model" - draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend

Hi Tom, On 3/5/19, 7:08 AM, "tom petch" wrote: - Original Message - From: "Yingzhen Qu" Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 9:09 PM > Hi Tom, > > Thanks for your review and comments. We have submitted version -10 to address your comments, please see my

Re: WG Adoption for "RIB YANG Data Model" - draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend

Hi Rob, I’ve taken all your comments. However, I’ve deferred adding the examples as this is best done with confd and I don’t have time to get that all setup right now. Thanks, Acee From: Robert Wilton Date: Monday, February 18, 2019 at 6:19 AM To: Jeff Tantsura , Routing WG , Routing WG ,

Re: WG Adoption for "RIB YANG Data Model" - draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend

Support as co-author. I’m not aware of any IPR. Thanks, Acee From: Jeff Tantsura Date: Friday, February 15, 2019 at 2:18 PM To: Routing WG , Routing WG , "draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-ext...@ietf.org" Subject: WG Adoption for "RIB YANG Data Model" - draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend Resent-From:

WG Adoption for "RIB YANG Data Model" - draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-08.txt

The authors of the subject document would like to request WG adoption. Thanks, Acee ___ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

Re: [ipwave] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp-01.txt

I agree. This draft describes a deployment of EBGP for the global aeronautical network – NOT the vaporization of oceanic networks …. Acee From: rtgwg on behalf of "Templin (US), Fred L" Date: Monday, January 14, 2019 at 11:03 AM To: Abdussalam Baryun , Fred Baker Cc: "d...@ietf.org" ,

Re: WG adoption poll for draft-asechoud-rtgwg-qos-model-07

I support WG adoption of this YANG model. Acee From: rtgwg on behalf of Jeff Tantsura Date: Friday, November 30, 2018 at 9:31 PM To: Routing WG Cc: Routing WG Subject: WG adoption poll for draft-asechoud-rtgwg-qos-model-07 Dear RTGWG, The authors have requested RTGWG to adopt

Re: Request for WG adoption - draft-templin-atn-bgp

Hi Jeff, As a co-author, I’m not aware of any IPR on the draft. Unsurprisingly, I support WG adoption. Thanks, Acee From: Jeff Tantsura Date: Friday, August 17, 2018 at 1:28 AM To: Routing WG Cc: rtgwg-chairs , "draft-templin-atn-bgp@ietf.org" Subject: Request for WG adoption -

Re: WG adoption poll for draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa

I support WG adoption. Thanks, Acee From: rtgwg on behalf of Robert Raszuk Date: Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 10:34 AM To: Chris Bowers Cc: Routing WG Subject: Re: WG adoption poll for draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa I support adoption of this document as a RTGWG item. Thx,

Re: [Idr] Rtgdir early review of draft-templin-atn-bgp-07

Hi Stewart, Fred, See further responses below. On 7/25/18, 6:22 PM, "Templin (US), Fred L" wrote: Hello Stewart, See below for further follow-up: Thanks - Fred > -Original Message- > From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com] > Sent:

Re: I-D Action: draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-07.txt

Hi Tom, We knew we had some of these to address before asking for working group adoption but you have pointed out others that we missed. I agree we need a better prefix with expectation that this will probably not be the last augmentation to ietf-routing.yang. Thanks Again, Acee and Yingzhen

Re: Request for WG adoption - draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model

Hi Jeff, I support WG adoption. Thanks, Acee From: rtgwg on behalf of Jeff Tantsura Date: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 9:04 PM To: Routing WG Cc: rtgwg-chairs , "draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-mo...@ietf.org" Subject: Request for WG adoption - draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model Dear RTGWG, The

Re: VPN security vs SD-WAN security

From: rtgwg on behalf of Stewart Bryant Date: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 5:55 AM To: Robert Raszuk Cc: Routing WG Subject: Re: VPN security vs SD-WAN security On 25/07/2018 10:40, Robert Raszuk wrote: /* Adjusting the subject ... */ ​Hello ​ Stewart, ​You have made the below comment

Re: [Lsr] [OPSAWG] [GROW] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt

> On Jul 6, 2018, at 8:59 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > >> ​Why anyone would need BMP wrapper to monitor IGP ? > > probably similar reasons that folk seem to need bgp-ls to get the > is-is/ospf databases. is-is and ospf have decades of complexity > layered on un-simple bases. so we seek yet

Re: [GROW] [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt

rementally. Best Regards, Robin -Original Message- From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2018 5:15 AM To: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Lizhenbin ; g...@ietf.org; ops...@ietf.org Cc: l...@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org; Guyu

Re: [GROW] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt

management. Expect to have more discussion with you in IETF 102. I'm sure we will. I really don't think this meets the "stick to the wall" test for GROW. Thanks, Acee Thanks, Robin -Original Message- From: Acee Lin

Re: [GROW] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt

ply inline. Best Regards, Robin -Original Message- From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 9:24 PM To: Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW) ; g...@ietf.org; ops..

Re: working group adoption poll for draft-mirsky-bfd-p2mp-vrrp-use-case

I support WG adoption. Thanks, Acee From: Rtg-bfd on behalf of Chris Bowers Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 12:46 PM To: Routing WG , "rtg-...@ietf.org" Subject: working group adoption poll for draft-mirsky-bfd-p2mp-vrrp-use-case RTGWG, The authors of draft-mirsky-bfd-p2mp-vrrp-use-case

Re: Asking for a slot in IETF101

rg> on behalf of Haoyu song <haoyu.s...@huawei.com> Date: Friday, March 2, 2018 at 11:56 To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org> Subject: RE: Asking for a slot in IETF101 Hi Acee, We also apply a slot in OPSAWG. Since the audience may be different

Re: Asking for a slot in IETF101

Why aren’t you presenting in an OPS area group? Acee From: rtgwg on behalf of Haoyu song Date: Friday, March 2, 2018 at 2:50 PM To: Routing WG Subject: Asking for a slot in IETF101 Dear RTGWG Chairs, I’m writing to ask for a

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-09.txt

Missed one change... Thanks, Acee On 3/1/18, 3:40 PM, "rtgwg on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.org" wrote: A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-11.txt

One more change to example tree diagram to reflect an imminent structure change to ietf-ospf.yang. On 3/1/18, 3:36 PM, "rtgwg on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.org" wrote: A New Internet-Draft is available from the

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-08.txt

Just fixed the example tree diagrams and JSON to reflect a change to the ietf-ospf.yang model (will be published prior to cut-off). Thanks, Acee On 3/1/18, 3:22 PM, "rtgwg on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.org" wrote: A

Re: Deborah Brungard's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07: (with DISCUSS)

ameters. Either "backoff" > or "SPF delay" naming should be used consistently if it is the titled algorithm which is PS. Good comments. But those are for the YANG documents. Not this one. Thanks --Bruno > > Thanks, > Deborah &

Re: Deborah Brungard's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07: (with DISCUSS)

Hi Spencer, We are begrudgingly discussing the inclusion of "default" values as opposed to "example" delay values and are willing to make this concession to resolve the issue. A couple things to note: 1. Even the OSPF Hello and Dead intervals (which are necessary to form an OSPF

Re: Deborah Brungard's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07: (with DISCUSS)

Hi Deborah, Alvaro, Bruno has posted -08 version addressing Alvaro's default timer value request. Can you clear your DISCUSSES? https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo/ Thanks, Acee On 2/24/18, 8:52 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com> wrote:

Re: Deborah Brungard's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07: (with DISCUSS)

ed when the same algorithm is deployed over the IGP domain (or at least an area). The standardization of the SPF Backoff algorithm is the start of the journey, not the destination. Thanks, Deborah -Original Message----- From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco

Re: Deborah Brungard's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07: (with DISCUSS)

Hi Deborah, Given that the goal of RFC 6976 was much more ambitious and the mechanisms are much more complex, I don't think this draft should be put in the same category. What we have done is precisely specify a standard algorithm for IGP SPF back-off. When deployed, this standard algorithm

Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07

Hi Elwyn, Also thank you much for your editorial comments. I must say I'm surprised that we didn’t catch some of these before. We will adopt most of them. One thing I'm not clear on is why you believe we should change RECOMMENDED to lowercase in the deployment recommendations. Unless

Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07

Hi Bruno, On 2/16/18, 9:00 AM, "bruno.decra...@orange.com" <bruno.decra...@orange.com> wrote: Hi Elwyn, Acee, Thanks for your review and comments. Please see inline [Bruno] > -Original Message- > From: Acee Lindem (acee)

Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07

Hi Elwyn, On 2/15/18, 2:12 PM, "Elwyn Davies" wrote: Reviewer: Elwyn Davies Review result: Ready with Nits I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by

Re: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-09: (with COMMENT)

Hi Adam, The -10 version includes IPv6 addresses in the examples. Note that OSPF router-ids and area-ids are represented in dotted-quad format but are not necessarily IPv4 addresses (although it is common for the unique router-id to be based on an IPv4 loopback address). Thanks, Acee On

  1   2   3   >