[bess] New bess Co-Chair

Dear bess WG: I am sad to report that Thomas Morin has decided not to continue as bess Co-Chair due to the demands of his job. Thomas: thank you for all the effort you have put into the WG, we all look forward to your continued contributions to the IETF! In consultation with Martin and the other

[bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-08

Dear Authors: I just finished reading this document (finally!). I have a some comments (see below) which I think should be easy to address. I also have some bigger issues that we’ll need the Chairs’ help to solve: (1) Coordination with nv03 For the Chairs: Except for some clarification commen

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-08

On December 5, 2017 at 9:25:39 AM, thomas.mo...@orange.com ( thomas.mo...@orange.com) wrote: > All, > > Martin Vigoureux, 2017-12-05 11:34: > > > Alvaro: [...] > > > What about Geneve (draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve)? The nvo3 WG is > focusing on > Geneve as the Standard encapsulation, but this document d

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-08

On December 5, 2017 at 9:25:39 AM, thomas.mo...@orange.com ( thomas.mo...@orange.com) wrote: > > > (2) Document Status > > > Why is this a Standards Track document? The Abstract/Introduction > say > that “this document describes how Ethernet VPN (EVPN) can be used > as an > NVO solution and explor

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-08

On December 5, 2017 at 9:25:39 AM, thomas.mo...@orange.com ( thomas.mo...@orange.com) wrote: > > [...] > > > M8. References > > > M8.1. TUNNEL-ENCAP (aka ) should be > Normative, which btw is marked to Obsolete rfc5512; I mention this > because both are listed in several parts, so you should take

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-08

On December 4, 2017 at 5:16:49 PM, John E Drake (jdr...@juniper.net) wrote: (1) Coordination with nv03 For the Chairs: Except for some clarification comments [1] related to the current version, I see no other traffic in the nvo3 list related to this document. Was there some other coordination

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-08

On December 6, 2017 at 6:52:42 AM, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) (saja...@cisco.com) wrote: Martin Vigoureux, 2017-12-05 11:34: Perhaps draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay could hint on such a Geneve work for EVPN; something like: "Adapting the EVPN control plane to the Geneve encapsulation is out of the scope

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-08

On December 5, 2017 at 10:53:02 PM, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) (saja...@cisco.com) wrote: Ali: Hi! Thanks for the review. Please refer to my replies to your comments marked with [Ali] inline. I have incorporated them in rev09 of the draft that has just been published. Please let me know if you have a

Re: [bess] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10

Vijay: Hi! Thanks for your review! The registry has a FCFS registration policy, so at some point in the life of draft-sd-l2vpn-evpn-overlay the code points were requested — not necessarily in the draft itself. Even though draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay is tagged in the datatracker to have replace

Re: [bess] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10: (with COMMENT)

On December 30, 2017 at 7:00:05 AM, Spencer Dawkins ( spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com) wrote: Spencer: Hi! Happy New Year! -- COMMENT: -- Both the Abstract and

[bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-dci-evpn-overlay-05

Dear authors: I just finished reading this document. As with draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay, it seems to me that this document is better suited as an Applicability Statement [1] instead of a Technical Specification -- both would result in a Standards Track document. It is hard for me to clearly id

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-dci-evpn-overlay-05

es in-line with *[JORGE].* Thanks. Jorge *From: *Alvaro Retana *Date: *Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 5:08 PM *To: *"draft-ietf-bess-dci-evpn-over...@ietf.org" < draft-ietf-bess-dci-evpn-over...@ietf.org> *Cc: *"bess@ietf.org" , "bess-cha...@ietf.org&quo

[bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03

Dear authors: I just finished reading this document. Thank you for a well written and straight forward document!! I have some comments (see below) that I think are easy to address. I am then starting the IETF Last Call. Thanks! Alvaro. Major: M1. All the rfc2119 keywords in this text shoul

[bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-usage-06

Dear authors: Not much I can say about this document, except that it would have been nice if it was published earlier to provide background to other EVPN document. Thanks for your work!! I just have a couple of comments on the references (see below). I am starting the IETF Last Call. Alvaro.

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03

On January 26, 2018 at 7:27:04 PM, Sami Boutros (sbout...@vmware.com) wrote: Hi! Do we need to submit a new draft with the changes? You can wait until other Last Call comments come in — but please do so before the IESG Telechat. Thanks! Alvaro. ___ B

[bess] New bess WG Co-Chair

Dear bess WG: As you know, Martin has been selected as a Routing AD starting next month at IETF 101 in London. As a result, he will be stepping down as bess co-chair. Martin: thank you for all the work and time you have dedicated to the WG — we all look forward to working with you in your new ro

[bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-09

Dear authors: I just finished reading this document. I am glad to finally get to process it -- thank you for the work! I do have a long list of comments (see below). Many of my major ones are related to the use of Normative Language and some other clarifications, including places where I think

Re: [bess] RTG-DIR Telechat review of draft-ietf-bess-dci-evpn-overlay

Hi! I see that the change below has already been made in -09. However, I don’t think that an Update applies in this case. In general, when Updating another document we’re basically saying: “change what was specified there for what is specified in here”…which, in this case, translates to rfc7432

Re: [bess] RTG-DIR Telechat review of draft-ietf-bess-dci-evpn-overlay

Hi! Sasha: You make a good point: if here are things that this document Updates rfc7432 on, which are not specific just to the DCI, then we should go ahead with it. The current related text reads: In particular, the document updates [RFC7432] on several aspects: o The Interconnect Etherne

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-09

Thanks Jorge! I started the IETF LC. Alvaro. On February 27, 2018 at 4:41:35 PM, Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) (jorge.raba...@nokia.com) wrote: Thank you so much for such a thorough review. You had very good points here (see in-line for my replies). I posted rev 10 addressing all

Re: [bess] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On May 9, 2018 at 11:14:15 AM, Benjamin Kaduk (ka...@mit.edu) wrote: Hi! Not exactly a DISCUSS, but is there a plan for resolving the normative reference to the expired draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding? There are several overlapping authors and that document already had gone through

Re: [bess] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On May 9, 2018 at 5:00:38 PM, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) (saja...@cisco.com) wrote: Ali: Hi! You are right, the draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding has passed the WGLC but I need to take care of some last min. comments before publishing the next rev. Since prefix-advertisement draft will bec

Re: [bess] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On May 10, 2018 at 9:25:35 AM, Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) ( jorge.raba...@nokia.com) wrote: Hi! Should we wait for the telechat and your go-ahead before we publish a new version? We are in the Telechat right now…so please publish when you can. Short note on process: the document

[bess] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please

Re: [bess] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi! Protecting the control plane is a topic that is wider than this document…or even wider than “just for BGP” (as covered by rfc7454). Additional recommendations are given in both rfc7454 and rfc6192 — this document should then have a reference to them. My 2c. Alvaro. On October 24, 2018 at 5

[bess] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however

[bess] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-07: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-07: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-07: (with COMMENT)

On January 15, 2019 at 7:49:53 AM, Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) (jorge.raba...@nokia.com) wrote: Jorge: Hi! (b) Form that text, what I get is that a new algorithm can define the meaning of the bits. Is that correct? If so, (1) s/a specific DF Alg MAY determine the use/a speci

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-07: (with COMMENT)

On January 17, 2019 at 12:55:33 AM, Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) (jorge.raba...@nokia.com) wrote: Hi! Thanks for all the answers. I’ll leave any decision to change up to Martin. :-) Thanks! Alvaro. (6) The HRW1999 reference must be Normative. [JORGE] please check out the discus

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On December 19, 2019 at 6:23:43 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: Adrian: Hi! > I'll think about this a little more when not on vacation... Enjoy your vacation!  I'm replying now so I don't have to think about this when I go on vacation. :-) > > (1) Controllers and other nodes. ... > 2. The challenge

Re: [bess] Discusses on draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane

Adrian: HI! Your document was sitting in line…. I am getting to it today. :-) Thanks! Alvaro. On June 12, 2020 at 5:00:09 AM, Adrian Farrel (adr...@olddog.co.uk) wrote: Hi Discussing ADs, I appreciate that authors sat on your Discusses for a long time and that that means that they are not in

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On May 31, 2020 at 4:10:35 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: Adrian: Hi! > > DISCUSS: > > - > > > > (1) Controllers and other nodes. ... > So, you are right and we are highlighting it in the security section, and > we can note the existing mit

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On July 5, 2020 at 1:10:06 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: Adrian: Hi! > > > DISCUSS: > >>> - > >>> > >>> (1) Controllers and other nodes. ... > We can, however, make sure that only nodes that are authorised to be > controllers are allowed t

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

rfc5575bis, when it came out of the WG had a section about error handling including treat-as-withdraw. As we processed and cleaned the document up we ended up not defining specific effort handling for FS, but relying on the behavior for Extended communities already specified somewhere else. Just

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Thanks Adrian! I looked at the diffs and reviewed our exchange. I’m clearing my DISCUSS. Alvaro. On August 19, 2020 at 6:11:27 PM, Adrian Farrel (adr...@olddog.co.uk) wrote: Just coming back to you on this one, Alvaro ___ BESS mailing list BESS@

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On October 13, 2020 at 2:55:07 AM, Ali Sajassi wrote: Ali: Hi! > Thanks very much for your comments and sorry for the delay, please refer to > my replies marked with [AS]. I looked at the replies and I'm clearing my DISCUSS. There is one outstanding issue that I trust you to complete before

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi! For some reason the original DISCUSS message didn’t make it into everyone’s mailbox (including mine), so I’m “hijacking” this reply to resend the comments. Note that the archive has the messages: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iesg/PByc1h2E-xSBnqXUtFTcltutEkQ/ Alvaro. === ---

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

your bfd-chair hat, of course. Thanks! Alvaro. On December 17, 2020 at 10:52:50 AM, Reshad Rahman wrote: > On 2020-12-16 4:21 p.m., Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 03:09:54PM -0800, Alvaro Retana wrote: > > > (2b) The fact that BFD monitoring can b

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

I agree with that. Thanks Jeff! Alvaro. On December 21, 2020 at 11:30:54 AM, Jeffrey Haas (jh...@pfrc.org) wrote: My recommendation is to extend WGLC to BFD and IDR. ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On December 20, 2020 at 7:24:34 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: Greg: Hi! I'm leaving in only the parts where we don't agree or where I have commments. Thanks! Alvaro. ... > > -- > > DISCUSS: > > -

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On December 22, 2020 at 10:59:19 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: Greg: Hi! I think we have converged on the first two DISCUSS points.  On the third one, I do want to give bfd/idr an opportunity to comment -- I agree with you that we should wait for Martin (I believe he's out for the rest of the year).

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On December 23, 2020 at 1:51:13 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: Greg: I have just one reply.  I am also leaving in the text where we're waiting for Chair/AD input. Thanks!! Alvaro. ... > > > Method described in Section 3.1.2 monitors the state of the data > > > plane but only for an egress P-PE link

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

this update addresses your comment on the origin of the PE address used in the P2MP BFD session. I much appreciate your review, comments, and suggestions. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:36 PM Alvaro Retana wrote: > On December 23, 2020 at 1:51:13 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: > >

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

nswers. Regards, Greg On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 8:51 AM Alvaro Retana wrote: > Greg: > > Hi! > > I trust that the changes we’ve discussed are reflected in the diffs. > > About the new text below…. It looks ok to me. Just a couple of > questions: When is this new TLV consi

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-11: (with COMMENT)

From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker Date: Monday, January 18, 2021 at 10:36 PM To: The IESG Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp...@ietf.org < draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp...@ietf.org>

[bess] Fwd: Last Call: (MVPN and MSDP SA Interoperation) to Proposed Standard

pim WG: FYI It looks like an earlier version of this document was discussed on the list. Please take a look at this version which is in Last Call. Thanks! Alvaro. On April 13, 2021 at 3:50:20 PM, The IESG (iesg-secret...@ietf.org) wrote: The IESG has received a request from the BGP Enabled

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On May 14, 2021 at 1:04:53 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: Hi! I share some of John's concerns -- quick comment on the first one. ... > > 1. There’s surprisingly little in this document that seems to be > > SR-specific (and what there is, has some problems, see below). Is there > > some reason you ru

Re: [bess] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Éric: Hi! MSDP (from 2003) is an IPv4-only protocol. Also, take a look at rfc4611/BCP121 (MSDP Deployment Scenarios) which mentions other IPv6 alternatives which makes any extension of MSDP unnecessary. Alvaro. On May 17, 2021 at 2:10:13 AM, Éric Vyncke wrote: > == DISCUSS == > While I am a

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On November 17, 2021 at 3:11:49 PM, Mankamana Mishra wrote: Mankamana: Hi! ... > -- > DISCUSS: > -- > > First of all, I am surprised that a document related t

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

used for long with this draft, wanted to make sure this is ok before i publish the changed version. Though i was trying to see if RFC3376 uses term Join. It looks like it does. but many places it uses Membership reports for actual packet on wire. Mankamana On 11/18/21 12:50 PM, Alvaro Retana wrote

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On February 16, 2022 at 1:28:43 PM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: Ketan: Hi! > > -- > > DISCUSS: > > -- > > > > I am balloting DISCUSS because the document underspe

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On February 18, 2022 at 12:23:03 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: Hi! > > > > -- > > > > DISCUSS: > > > > -- ... > > > > Clearly (from looking at rfc8986), not all

Re: [bess] Please send me slot request for IETF 113 (BESS is only remote )

Hi! I’m wondering about the remote-only part of your message below. The fact that the Chairs cannot make it to Vienna should not be a deterrent to having a portion of the meeting in-person. I don’t know what is the mixture of people from the WG who will be there in person is, but even assuming “

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On February 18, 2022 at 10:53:20 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: Hi! We're still not on the same page. [Cut the indentation to make it more readable.] > > > > -- > > > > DISCUSS: > > > > ---

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On January 13, 2022 at 5:11:26 PM, Mankamana Mishra wrote: Mankamana: Hi!  Sorry for the delay. ... > Apart from that there were no concern from PIM WG . I'm sad because we couldn't find interest in pim to do a thorough review.  I don't translate that into "no concern", but that is just a diffe

Re: [bess] Request for IDR WG review of draft-ietf-bess-ebgp-dmz-02

Hi! I took a look at this document. I agree that the use case presented should be addressed, but I don't think the document is ready for WGLC, or even necessary (see below). In fact, I'm having a hard time understanding how it can progress if it depends on an expired draft, the proposed changes

Re: [bess] Request for IDR WG review of draft-ietf-bess-ebgp-dmz-02

On June 26, 2023 at 5:27:39 PM, Jeff Tantsura wrote: Jeff: > Over the last couple of years I have reached out to the authors of the > original draft at least twice with a request to refresh the draft and bring > the necessary changes in, without much success though. > ... > Note that there’s also

Re: [bess] Status of draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community

[Took Adrian off.] Hi! Any ideas on when we might see the update? Thanks! Alvaro. On 2/8/15, 5:50 PM, "Adrian Farrel" wrote: >Hi authors, > >Good news /bad news :-) > >The IESG reviewed your document on Thursday on the telechat and approved >it for publication as an RFC. Well done. > >Howeve

Re: [bess] Status of draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community

Pradosh?? Thanks! Alvaro. On 5/6/15, 5:41 PM, "David Smith (djsmith)" wrote: >Pradosh is working on so I'll defer to him. /dave > >-Original Message----- >From: Alvaro Retana (aretana) >Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 3:40 PM >To: draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown

[bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-spbm-evpn

Hi! I think the general readability of the document could improve. See below for some suggestions. While that is not a showstopper, I would like to see my comments about the Security Considerations (see below) addressed before starting the IETF Last Call. Thanks! Alvaro. Major: 1. Sec

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-spbm-evpn

On 8/4/15, 10:08 PM, "BESS on behalf of Alvaro Retana (aretana)" mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of aret...@cisco.com<mailto:aret...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi! I just looked at the update in the –01 version that you published last week. I think the general reada

[bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-ingress-replication-02

Hi! I just finished reading this document. In general I think that there are some things that could be done to improve the readability/clarity. While the authors address the items below, I’ll start he IETF Last Call and put the document on the IESG Agenda (probably for Oct/15). Please post an

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-ingress-replication-02

On 9/25/15, 2:11 PM, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" mailto:zzh...@juniper.net>> wrote: Jeffrey: Hi! . . . Major: 1. I-D.ietf-bess-ir and I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet should be Normative References. Zzh> Done. I-D.ietf-bess-ir wasn’t moved. . . . 1. Section 4. (Security Considerations) Are

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-ingress-replication-02

On 9/28/15, 10:39 AM, "thomas.mo...@orange.com" mailto:thomas.mo...@orange.com>> wrote: Jeffrey/Thomas: Hi! First of all, please note that the Gen-ART review that came in today had the same comment about the Normative references…which really indicates that if yo

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-ingress-replication-02

On 9/30/15, 2:34 AM, "thomas.mo...@orange.com" mailto:thomas.mo...@orange.com>> wrote: Thomas: Hi! . . . Current: The label may be shared with other P-tunnels, subject to the anti-ambiguity rules for extranet [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet

Re: [bess] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-ingress-replication-03: (with COMMENT)

On 10/15/15, 8:28 AM, "Stephen Farrell" wrote: Stephen (and everyone else): >IMO enough folks have commented on this aspect >that the wg would be wise to seriously consider the >readibility of their output...(This is not a discuss since >I've been assured that this is not a problem for implement

[bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-02

Dear authors: I just finished reading this document. All of what is described in this document is straight forward, so much so that it requires no change to existing technology, which makes me think that users/operators have been able to do this all along. Is that correct? Is there anything

Re: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-morin-bess-mvpn-fast-failover

bess WG: As those of you following this thread may have already noticed, no IPR had been disclosed related to this document, or any of the documents it replaces ([1] and [2]), at the time this adoption poll started..nor by the time the poll was to end on Oct/16. On Oct/17 the WG received a note a

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-02

On 11/10/15, 2:18 AM, "Xuxiaohu" mailto:xuxia...@huawei.com>> wrote: Xiaohu: Hi! We have updated the draft according to your comments and suggestions. I just have a couple of small items. Please see my comments below.. I'm going to start the IETF Last Call and put this document up for the IE

[bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet-03

Hi! I just finished reading this document. As mentioned by the WG chairs at the meeting in Yokohama, the technology in bess can be complex and hard to penetrate for the average (or novice) reader. While the target of documents like this one is not always the average (or novice) reader, it is

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet-03

On 11/17/15, 4:33 PM, "Eric C Rosen" wrote: >[Eric] Alvaro, thanks for your review. I just posted revision -04, >with a number of edits made in response to your comments. Thanks! I've requested IETF Last Call and put the document on the Telechat agenda. Alvaro. _

Re: [bess] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-06: (with COMMENT)

On 12/3/15, 10:15 AM, "Spencer Dawkins at IETF" mailto:spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com>> wrote: I may be confused ... On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Alia Atlas mailto:akat...@gmail.com>> wrote: Oh - looping can happen naturally as a result of routing reconvergence. That's what the TTL is for, in

Re: [bess] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-06: (with DISCUSS)

Alia: Hi! Xiaohu posted an update which I think should address your concerns. Please take a look. Thanks! Alvaro. On 12/2/15, 11:13 PM, "Alia Atlas" mailto:akat...@gmail.com>> wrote: That works for me. Thanks, Alia On Dec 2, 2015 11:08 PM, "Xuxiaohu" mailto:xuxia...@huawei.com>> wrote:

Re: [bess] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Stephen: Hi! Xiaohu posted an update that we hope addresses your concerns. Pelase take a look. Thanks! Alvaro. ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet-04: (with DISCUSS)

Kathleen: Hi! Eric updated the draft a couple of hours ago. ;-) Please take a look. Thanks! Alvaro. On 12/18/15, 11:19 AM, "Kathleen Moriarty" wrote: >> >>I understand that there are issues having to do with the possibility of >>observing or altering the traffic on the wire. Certainly I c

Re: [bess] [mpls] draft-rosen-idr-rfc3107bis-00

On 1/13/16, 1:11 PM, "mpls on behalf of Eric C Rosen" wrote: Hi! >While I put "idr" in the name of the draft, it's not completely >obvious which WG should own this draft (assuming it progresses) Deborah and I had a quick chat about this point and we think that (if it progresses) this document s

[bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-multicast-damping-03

Hi! I think that the title of this document clearly reflects what you want to do — which may be one of the reasons there was virtually no discussion about it (or any of its predecessors) on the list. However, I think the contents leave many open doors that need to be closed before this documen

Re: [bess] Joel Jaeggli's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 2/28/16, 5:37 PM, "Joel Jaeggli" wrote: Joel: Hi! How are you? ... >-- >DISCUSS: >-- > >After further discussion related to the ops dir review, I'm going t

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-multicast-damping-03

On 2/24/16, 11:58 AM, "Thomas Morin" mailto:thomas.mo...@orange.com>> wrote: Thomas: Hi! There are several places where we're still not in sync. Please se below. Maybe talking in person would be good. Thanks! Alvaro. 2016-02-23, Alvaro Retana (aretana): The A

[bess] FW: Last Call: (Multicast VPN state damping) to Proposed Standard

idr and pim WGs: Hi! Please take a look at this document and send comments to the bess WG. The IETF Last Call expires on Apr/13, but the document is scheduled to be reviewed by the IESG on May/5, so there's enough time to address comments. Thanks! Alvaro. On 3/23/16, 3:18 PM, "iesg-secret...@

Re: [bess] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Sue: Hi! Can you please take a look at this? Thanks! Alvaro. On 4/12/16, 3:29 PM, "Martin Vigoureux" wrote: >Dear all, > >we took the opportunity of this IETF meeting to discuss with Sue, Joel >and Benoit, and with Eric. > >Sue has had two requests: >1/ to add some text clarifying the encodi

[bess] FW: Internal WG Review: L2VPN Service Model (l2sm)

Hi! If you haven’t done so, it would be a good idea for the participants in this WG to review this charter. Thanks! Alvaro. On 10/10/16, 6:29 AM, "iesg on behalf of IETF Secretariat" mailto:iesg-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org

[bess] FW: WG Action: Formed L2VPN Service Model (l2sm)

FYI… On 11/4/16, 1:58 PM, "iesg on behalf of The IESG" mailto:iesg-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of iesg-secret...@ietf.org> wrote: A new IETF WG has been formed in the Operations and Management Area. For additional information, please contact the Area Directors or

[bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07

Dear authors: Hi! I just finished reading this document. Please take a look at my comments below – I think they should be easy to resolve. I will start the IETF Last Call when the comments have been addressed and a new revision has been published. Thanks! Alvaro. Major: M1. There are 8 a

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07

On 2/3/17, 4:41 PM, "Sami Boutros" wrote: > Thanks for your review. Please have a look at attached draft w/ most of the > comments > addressed. Looking at the published version -08. I have some answers to your answers below. I also see that there may be other changes as a result of th

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07

On 2/16/17, 3:57 PM, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" mailto:aret...@cisco.com>> wrote: On 2/3/17, 4:41 PM, "Sami Boutros" wrote: > Thanks for your review. Please have a look at attached draft w/ most of the > comments > addressed. Looking at the pu

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07

On 2/3/17, 4:41 PM, "Sami Boutros" wrote: [Oops…sent the last two too early… ☹ ]   Sami: Hi > Thanks for your review. Please have a look at attached draft w/ most of the > comments > addressed.   Looking at the published version -08.   I have some answers to your answers below.  I also see th

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07

On 2/21/17, 12:39 PM, "Sami Boutros" wrote: Sami: Hi! > Please see comments inline. I have submitted 09. I just have a couple of small things below, the biggest being the 24-bit alignment – which seems to be resolved on the list. I’m going to start the IETF Last Call, but please update the d

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07

One more thing…you’re missing the reference to RFC5226. Thanks! Alvaro. ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07

Sami: The reference to RFC5226 should be Normative. Other than that, it looks good to me. Thanks! Alvaro. On 2/24/17, 2:54 PM, "Sami Boutros" wrote: > Attached is the -10 draft with all updates. If All good, I will submit it > Monday. ___ BESS

[bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-09

Dear authors: I just finished reading this document. In general, the document could benefit from an editorial pass to improve readability; I put in some suggestions below, but I’m sure I didn’t mention all. I don’t think that my comments (even the Major ones) will be hard to resolve – most ar

Re: [bess] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-11: (with COMMENT)

Hi! Yes, the WG was made aware of the IPR at the WGLC: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/I5_GI44221EZJGQGWHVdv0ukbGk/?qid=08649c721ebdb111c215f6854ff0c241 Alvaro. On 4/11/17, 12:34 PM, "Mirja Kühlewind" wrote: -

Re: [bess] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Sami: Hi! Let’s go ahead and add the text to explain the operation with VXLAN – I think that the reference to rfc7348 should be Normative. I’ll take care of dealing with the downref when we’re ready with the new text. Thanks! Alvaro. On 4/12/17, 2:14 PM, "Sami Boutros" wrote: Hi Alia,

Re: [bess] IETF LC for IDR-ish document (Default EBGP Route Propagation Behavior Without Policies) to Proposed Standard

Hi! The way I see it, the change proposed in this document is a change to the base BGP spec – as such, many/all users of BGP will be affected. I expect bess participants to also participate in idr – I don’t see the need to extend the discussion. Alvaro. On 5/6/17, 1:53 PM, "Warren Kumari"

Re: [bess] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 5/11/17, 1:19 AM, "Adam Roach" wrote: Adam: Hi! > -- > DISCUSS: > -- > > Looking at the Shepherd write up and the Ballot, I see no mention of the > normativ

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-09

On 5/9/17, 8:51 PM, "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" mailto:saja...@cisco.com>> wrote: Ali: Hi! We’re on the right path, but not there yet. Please see my comments inline below. Thanks! Alvaro. … > > M1. Both the Introduction and the Abstract mention that “this document > > discusses > > how the f

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-09

On 5/12/17, 7:15 PM, "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" mailto:saja...@cisco.com>> wrote: Ali: Hi! Sorry for the long RTT, busy days… I have two remaining comments (below). Once the registry is defined, then we can start the IESTF LC. Thanks! Alvaro. … > > > M6. Definition of the E-TREE Extended Co

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-09

On 6/7/17, 3:16 PM, "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" mailto:saja...@cisco.com>> wrote: Ali: Hi! > 1) I will get a registry for them set up when there will be more than one > flag. Currently, there is only a > single flag defined and we do not anticipate any additional flags at this > point. To be cl

Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-08

I know it’s there. I’ve been working on the spring documents which are taking up more time than I expected. BTW, you can follow at home here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ad/alvaro.retana/ Thanks! Alvaro. On 6/23/17, 2:10 AM, "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" mailto:saja...@cisco.com>> wrote: O

Re: [bess] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-12

Ali: Hi! So, you’re really only changing the 0x0C – 0xFA range, right? If my hex is not wrong, you’re missing some pieces below: 0x40-0x7F, and 0xC0-0xCF, which I’m assume remain Unassigned, right? Thanks! Alvaro. On 8/16/17, 5:54 PM, "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" mailto:saja...@cisco.com>> wrote

  1   2   >