date:20191009

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

2019-10-09 Thread Satoru Matsushima

I support the adoption of this draft as a co-author. And I’m not aware of any 
IPRs on this draft.

I’m also happy to contribute to this work as an operator who run networks with 
the solution specified in this draft.

Cheers,
--satoru

>> On Sep 27, 2019, at 19:59, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
>>  wrote:
> 
> Hello,
>  
> This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
> draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 [1] .
>  
> Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.
>  
> We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
> Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
> rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
>  
> If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
> respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any 
> relevant undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't 
> progress without answers from all the authors and contributors.
> Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.
>  
> If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
> respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
> conformance with IETF rules.
>  
> This poll for adoption closes on Friday 11th October 2019.  
>  
> Regards,
> Matthew and Stephane
>  
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services/
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-03 shepherd's review

2019-10-09 Thread Ali Sajassi (sajassi)


Hi Jorge,

Thanks for your comments and I agree with you that it can be improved further.

With respect to your editorial comments (i.e., first two bullets and the 
typos), we’ll take care of them but with respect to your non-editorial comments 
(i.e., last two bullets), can you provide us with your proposed texts as the 
starting point.

Cheers,
Ali

From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" 
Date: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 5:02 PM
To: "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" , "Mankamana 
Mishra (mankamis)" , 
"draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-03 shepherd's review
Resent-From: 
Resent-To: Cisco Employee , , 
, , 
Resent-Date: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 5:01 PM

Hi Mankamana and authors,

I went through version 4 of this draft. Looks much better, thanks.
I still think it can be improved before it progresses further:


  *   The abstract and introduction should already say that the procedures are 
valid for MLD proxy, in addition to IGMP proxy. The last paragraph in the 
terminology section is good, but I think it should go into the introduction 
IMHO.
  *   “IGMP” join/leave synch route is still used throughout the text, whereas 
Multicast join/leave synch route should be used.
  *   Error handling for routes type 6/7/8:
 *   Can you mix source and groups of different families? I assume not, but 
it would be nice to be explicit
 *   Can the originator IP be of different family than source/group? I 
assume yes, but it would be nice to be explicit
  *   Multicast Leave synch route and Leave Group Synch sequence number, needs 
clarification, I think it is underspecified:
 *   The PE advertising the route will increment the seq number with each 
leave procedure for the (x,G), but how does it have to be processed at 
reception?
 *   Is a new seq number for the same [RD,esi,tag,(x,G),orig] restarting 
the max response time for the (x,G)?
 *   What if the received seq number is lesser than the previous one for 
the same route? Any action?


Typos:

  *   Section 4.1.1 – s/the exclude flag MUST also needs to/the exclude flag 
MUST/
  *   Section 4.1.2 – s/MUST withdraws/MUST withdraw/
  *   Section 5.1 – s/IMGMPv3/IGMPv3/

Thank you!
Jorge

From: BESS  on behalf of "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 

Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 9:29 AM
To: "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" , 
"draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-03 shepherd's review

Hi Mankamana,

Pls find additional feedbacks inline.

Brgds,

Stephane


From: Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) [mailto:manka...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 00:38
To: LITKOWSKI Stephane OBS/OINIS; draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org; 
bess@ietf.org
Cc: Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
Subject: Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-03 shepherd's review

Hi Stephane,
Thanks for your review comment. Please find inline.

Thanks
Mankamana


From: BESS  on behalf of "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 

Date: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 6:20 AM
To: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-03 shepherd's review

Hi,

There are some Nits to fix:
https://www6.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-03.txt


Here is my review of the document:

Abstract & Intro:
s/RFC 7432/ RFC7432.
The reference should be removed from the abstract (as per IDNits).
Mankamana:   Will be taken care of in next revision.

§2.1:
It may be good to change the paragraph name to IGMP/MLD proxy and use IGMP/MLD 
in the paragraph. This comment could apply to various other places of the 
document.
 Mankamana: Will take care for paragraph name. Inside paragraph we have used 
IGMP , and start of the document we did state that all of IGMP procedure are 
applicable for MLD too.  Is it ok ?
§2.1.1:

-“it only sends a single BGP
   message corresponding to the very first IGMP Join”.
[SLI] Do we really care about the IGMP message (first or second…) used as a 
source to build the EVPN route ? The important point is that we do it only one 
time.
   Mankamana:   changing text to “very first IGMP Join received”.  
Purpose of this text is to clarify that we send BGP route as soon as we process 
it for first time locally. Subsequent joins are not sent.
[SLI2] Could you add a statement about this goal of sending the 
BGP update asap ?




-  For MLD what is the expected behavior in term of flag setting in the 
SMET, do we set v2 for MLDv2 or do we consider that it is equivalent to IGMPv3 
and then we set v3 ?
   Mankamana:  Have text in terminology
“ This document also assumes familiarity with the 
terminology of
   [RFC7432]. Though most of the place this document uses term IGMP
   membership request (Joins),

Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-03 shepherd's review

2019-10-09 Thread Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)

Hi Mankamana and authors,

I went through version 4 of this draft. Looks much better, thanks.
I still think it can be improved before it progresses further:


  *   The abstract and introduction should already say that the procedures are 
valid for MLD proxy, in addition to IGMP proxy. The last paragraph in the 
terminology section is good, but I think it should go into the introduction 
IMHO.
  *   “IGMP” join/leave synch route is still used throughout the text, whereas 
Multicast join/leave synch route should be used.
  *   Error handling for routes type 6/7/8:
 *   Can you mix source and groups of different families? I assume not, but 
it would be nice to be explicit
 *   Can the originator IP be of different family than source/group? I 
assume yes, but it would be nice to be explicit
  *   Multicast Leave synch route and Leave Group Synch sequence number, needs 
clarification, I think it is underspecified:
 *   The PE advertising the route will increment the seq number with each 
leave procedure for the (x,G), but how does it have to be processed at 
reception?
 *   Is a new seq number for the same [RD,esi,tag,(x,G),orig] restarting 
the max response time for the (x,G)?
 *   What if the received seq number is lesser than the previous one for 
the same route? Any action?


Typos:

  *   Section 4.1.1 – s/the exclude flag MUST also needs to/the exclude flag 
MUST/
  *   Section 4.1.2 – s/MUST withdraws/MUST withdraw/
  *   Section 5.1 – s/IMGMPv3/IGMPv3/

Thank you!
Jorge

From: BESS  on behalf of "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 

Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 9:29 AM
To: "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" , 
"draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-03 shepherd's review

Hi Mankamana,

Pls find additional feedbacks inline.

Brgds,

Stephane


From: Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) [mailto:manka...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 00:38
To: LITKOWSKI Stephane OBS/OINIS; draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org; 
bess@ietf.org
Cc: Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
Subject: Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-03 shepherd's review

Hi Stephane,
Thanks for your review comment. Please find inline.

Thanks
Mankamana


From: BESS  on behalf of "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 

Date: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 6:20 AM
To: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-03 shepherd's review

Hi,

There are some Nits to fix:
https://www6.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-03.txt


Here is my review of the document:

Abstract & Intro:
s/RFC 7432/ RFC7432.
The reference should be removed from the abstract (as per IDNits).
Mankamana:   Will be taken care of in next revision.

§2.1:
It may be good to change the paragraph name to IGMP/MLD proxy and use IGMP/MLD 
in the paragraph. This comment could apply to various other places of the 
document.
 Mankamana: Will take care for paragraph name. Inside paragraph we have used 
IGMP , and start of the document we did state that all of IGMP procedure are 
applicable for MLD too.  Is it ok ?
§2.1.1:

-“it only sends a single BGP
   message corresponding to the very first IGMP Join”.
[SLI] Do we really care about the IGMP message (first or second…) used as a 
source to build the EVPN route ? The important point is that we do it only one 
time.
   Mankamana:   changing text to “very first IGMP Join received”.  
Purpose of this text is to clarify that we send BGP route as soon as we process 
it for first time locally. Subsequent joins are not sent.
[SLI2] Could you add a statement about this goal of sending the 
BGP update asap ?




-  For MLD what is the expected behavior in term of flag setting in the 
SMET, do we set v2 for MLDv2 or do we consider that it is equivalent to IGMPv3 
and then we set v3 ?
   Mankamana:  Have text in terminology
“ This document also assumes familiarity with the 
terminology of
   [RFC7432]. Though most of the place this document uses term IGMP
   membership request (Joins), the text applies equally for MLD
   membership request too. Similarly, text for IGMPv2 applies to MLDv1
   and text for  IGMPv3 applies to MLDv2”

I hope this covers your comment.

[SLI2] It does partially, the thing that IGMPv2 is similar to MLDv1 does not 
explicitly say what we do it term of encoding of the version number. As the 
version encoding is clearly stated in §7.1, it would be better to point to this 
paragraph rather than giving an ambiguous/partial information there.



-  s/BGP is a statefull/BGP is a stateful  ?
Mankamana : Done.


-  In 1),  for clarity purpose, it would be good to separate the (*,G) 
and (S,G) case in two separate paragraphs. At the first read, when reading “In 
case of IGMPv3, exclude flag…”, I thought it

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

2019-10-09 Thread Dongling Duan (duan)

Support



Dongling Duan



On Sep 27, 2019, at 6:59 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>> wrote:



Hello,



This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 [1] .



Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.



We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).



If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.



If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.



This poll for adoption closes on Friday 11th October 2019.



Regards,

Matthew and Stephane



[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services/





___

BESS mailing list

BESS@ietf.org

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess



  *   [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-dawra...
  Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
  *   Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-d...
  bruno.decraene
  *   Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-d...
  Gyan Mishra
  *   Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-d...
  Zhuangshunwan
  *   Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-d...
  Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
  *   Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-d...
  Gaurav Dawra
  *   Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-d...
  Swadesh Agrawal (swaagraw)
  *   Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-d...
  Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
  *   Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-d...
  Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
  *   Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-d...
  Sachin K
  *   Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-d...
  Linda Dunbar
  *   Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-d...
  Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
  *   Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-d...
  Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
  *   Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-d...
  Robert Raszuk
  *   Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-d...
  Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)
  *   Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-d...
  Shyam Sethuram
  *   Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-d...
  Gyan Mishra
  *   [bess] 答复: WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-d...
  Lizhenbin
  *   Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-d...
  Zafar Ali (zali)
  *   Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-d...
  PEIRENS Bart (TSI/MST)
  *   Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-d...
  Muhammad Durrani
  *   Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-d...
  Krishna Muddenahally Ananthamurthy (kriswamy)
  *   Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-d...
  Serge Krier (sekrier)
  *   Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-d...

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

2019-10-09 Thread Ali Sajassi (sajassi)

… and I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR for this draft.

Cheers,
Ali

From: Cisco Employee 
Date: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 10:20 PM
To: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" , 
"draft-dawra-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

I support WG adoption of this draft. As I mentioned at the BESS meeting, there 
has been a good attempt to address my previously raised concerns in this new 
revision.

Cheers,
Ali

From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 

Date: Friday, September 27, 2019 at 4:01 AM
To: "draft-dawra-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 [1] .

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Friday 11th October 2019.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services/

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-03 shepherd's review

Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-03 shepherd's review

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

5 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information