Re: [bess] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 11/29/2018 5:05 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > The updates in the -13 include new Updates headers for RFCs 7582 and 7900, > which may or may not call for additional IESG eyes on the changes. Just from > looking at the diff, it's not entirely clear to me what about those documents > is > being

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

) wrote: > Hi Eric, > > thanks for your detailed reply. Please see below. > >> Am 15.11.2018 um 19:07 schrieb Eric Rosen : >> >> On 10/24/2018 8:28 AM, Mirja Kühlewind wrote: >>> --

Re: [bess] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12: (with DISCUSS)

Suresh, I believe draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-13 addresses your issues. Please let me know. Eric On 10/25/2018 9:14 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi Martin, > > >> On Oct 25, 2018, at 4:31 AM, Vigoureux, Martin (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) >> wrote: >> >> Hello Suresh, >> >> thank you for

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

Benjamin, I believe draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-13 addresses your issues. Please let me know whether this is the case. And thank you for doing such a careful review. Eric On 10/22/2018 9:41 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for >

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

On 10/22/2018 9:41 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > -- > DISCUSS: > -- > > This document places normative requirements on new tunnel types but does > not indicate

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

On 10/24/2018 8:28 AM, Mirja Kühlewind wrote: > - > DISCUSS: > -- > > In section 9 (security considerations): > Thanks for discussing network load here! However,

Re: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-01

I am not aware of any relevant undisclosed IPR. On 10/30/2018 4:22 AM, stephane.litkow...@orange.com wrote: Hi WG, This email begins a two-week poll for BESS working group adoption draft-zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-01 [1] Please review the

Re: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12.txt

Yes, IANA has acknowledged this.  But it won't appear in the registry until the draft is ready for publication as an RFC. On 10/15/2018 11:53 PM, Xiejingrong wrote: > BESS WG: > > Had the IANA ack'ed the request of adding the value 2 (Name LIR-PF) ? > > I have not seen it in >

Re: [bess] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-10

> Minor issues: > - > > As I understand it, if a network only partially supports the new > (LIR-pF) flag, it doesn't work properly. So we find at the end of > section 2: > > ...the ingress node can conclude > that the egress node originating that Leaf A-D route does not support >

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

My opinion is unchanged; there is no need to impose any implementation requirement, nor is there any need to add more process hurdles that further slow down the progress of a document towards publication. Certainly there is no need to gather details about implementations, vendor releases,