I see the DISCUSS on the IS-IS document is still open - are the authors discussing resolution?
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-discriminator/ballot/ Acee From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, February 5, 2016 at 9:47 AM To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Manav Bhatia <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, OSPF WG List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> list" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [OSPF] More Comments on OSPF S-BFD Discriminator All of this is fine and as it should be – but the ADs need to tell us if the discussion of this point as regards draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base is concluded and the IGP drafts may proceed. As draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base has been submitted to IESG for publication I assume this should be resolved but the IS-IS Draft still has this state: “Has a DISCUSS. Has enough positions to pass once DISCUSS positions are resolved.” ??? Les From: Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 5:00 AM To: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata); Manav Bhatia Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; OSPF WG List Subject: Re: [OSPF] More Comments on OSPF S-BFD Discriminator Carlos, Manav, I remember now as well - this is the text I was referring to after the discussion including Les. Thanks, Acee From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 10:33 PM To: Manav Bhatia <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Acee Lindem <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, OSPF WG List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [OSPF] More Comments on OSPF S-BFD Discriminator Thank you Manav! I remember now :-) Done :-) https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator-03 Thanks, — Carlos. On Feb 4, 2016, at 9:53 PM, Manav Bhatia <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Carlos, I think we need to add the following in the current version: “When multiple S-BFD discriminators are advertised how a given discriminator is mapped to a specific use case is out of scope for this document.” I dont have the xml with me that i can update. Can you do it if you have one with you? Cheers, Manav On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi, Acee, On Feb 4, 2016, at 2:24 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Carlos, From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 2:16 PM To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Manav Bhatia <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, OSPF WG List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [OSPF] More Comments on OSPF S-BFD Discriminator Hi, Acee, Following up on your note below regarding draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator, could you request publication and send this document to the IESG? Has the document been updated with the proposed text? It hasn’t been modified since Sept 24, 2015. Yes. The only text modification proposed and to be implemented was done here: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator-02.txt I do not believe there was anything else pending. Do you mean something else? Thanks! Carlos. Thanks, Acee [BTW, its sibling document on ISIS is already in IESG ballot.] Thanks! — Carlos. On Nov 11, 2015, at 4:16 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I was more concerned about the consumer of the information than the IGPs. I did look at base S-BFD draft and I agree this unspecified. Let’s go forward than with the proposed text and I will request publication. Thanks, Acee
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
