Reviewer: Loa Andersson
Review result: Has Issues
There are a lot of Abbreviations unecpanded, starting with EVPN in the
abstract,
that are not well-know abbreviations according to the RFC Editors list at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt
The suggestion is that the
the BESS agenda and did not found the two drafts. It might be
a good idea to listen in on the joint meeting from the start. Comment as
necessary.
/Loa
--
Loa Anderssonemail: l...@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert loa.pi...@gmail.com
Bronze Dragon
ions and before
firming-up on newly introduced parameters.
Regards,
Saumya.
-Original Message-
From: Loa Andersson [mailto:l...@pi.nu]
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2022 5:36 PM
To: draft-saum-evpn-lsp-ping-extens...@ietf.org; BESS
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-saum-evpn-lsp-ping-extension-
/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
--
Loa Anderssonemail: l...@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert loa.pi...@gmail.com
Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https
Wim asked about the relationship to 3GPP. I think your answer was that
since you are not changing anything in the 3GPP specifications there is
no problem. That might be correct, but I think it would be prudent to
let 3GPP know what we are doing.
/Loa
--
Loa Andersson
ime I would like to recommend that you take a look at
section 4.3 "Abstract" of RFC7322 "Style Guide".
/Loa
--
Loa Anderssonemail: l...@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert loa.pi...@gmail.com
Bronze Dragon Consulting
01:14, Boutros, Sami wrote:
Actually the draft is there.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-sr-bess-evpn-vpws-gateway-00.html
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-sr-bess-evpn-vpws-gateway-00.html>
Thanks,
Sami
*From: *BESS on behalf of Loa Andersson
*Date: *Sunday, Mar
osted.
Is it appropriate to discuss this document at the meeting when it has
not been possible to read the document in praparation.
/Loa
--
Loa Anderssonemail: l...@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert loa.pi...@gmail.com
Bronze Dragon Consulting
mentation as per [2].
Thank you,
Stephane & Matthew
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw
___
mpls mailing list
m...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/list
the authors and contributors have stated on the working group
mailing list that they are not aware of any other IPRs that relates
to this document.
This working group last call ends April 20, 2017.
/Loa
MPLS wg co-chairs
--
Loa Anderssonemail: l...@mail01.huawei.com
Sen
nd contributors have stated on the working group
mailing list that they are not aware of any other IPRs that relates
to this document.
This working group last call ends April 20, 2017.
/Loa
MPLS wg co-chairs
--
Loa Anderssonemail: l...@mail01.huawei.com
Sen
Working Groups,
Please note that the working group adoption poll for
draft-rosen-mpls-rfc3107bis has been started in the mpls wg. Please send your
comments to the mpls wg mailing list (m...@ietf.org).
/Loa
mpls wg co-chair
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Loa Anders
we could write a separate document
- we could find another document where this has a better fit than in
draft-rosen-mpls-rfc3107bis
- any other suggestion
Let us know if you have an opinion.
Please send your responses to the mpls wg mailing list (m...@ietf.org).
/Loa
mpls wg-co-chair
Working Groups,
Please note that there will be a discussion on
draf-rosen-mpls-rfc3107bis
in the MPLS wg meeting, Wednesday morning. Currently the discussion is
planned to start at 11.25am, though the time may be subject to change.
/Loa
--
Loa Anderssonemail: l
Eric,
In this particular case I think "cross-posting" is necessary.
One small reflection for what it is worth.
If there is no strong reason to put this in one working group or
another, there is probably no strong reason to change the home of a
draft either.
/Loa
On 2016-01-14 02:11, Eric C Ro
Folks,
For some freak reason I was (somewhat) involved in the discussion when
this document was started up.
I've read it several times and it is a very useful, almost "must have"
type of document. The document is ready for publication!
/Loa
On 2016-01-11 17:11, Martin Vigoureux wrote:
This is
Folks,
I'm mostly on the same page as Eric, if for no other reason that we have
an implementation hurdle in the shepherds write-up. No need to raise it
higher it already serve the purpose.
/Loa
On 2015-12-15 03:32, Eric Rosen wrote:
My opinion is unchanged; there is no need to impose any imple
Thomas,
On 2015-11-26 22:01, thomas.mo...@orange.com wrote:
Hi Loa,
Loa Andersson :
One can speculate about the reasons for this, but it seems that often
the decision whether or not to disclose an implementation is outside
the mandate for people participating in immediate IETF process.
I
Folks,
I'm very much om the same page as Andy, having knowledge of
implementations is a good thing. A "requirement" that we have an
implementation before requesting that the document is published as
an RFC is in most cases also good.
The tricky part is when to be flexible. I've asked for impleme
Martin,
I remember checking back when we were doing the wglc, I had no
concerns, I can't see that that would have changed.
/Loa
PS
It would be good to have a table explaining what the different IPR
disclosures actully means.
On 2015-10-01 16:07, Martin Vigoureux wrote:
Former L2VPN WG part
Alissa,
On 2015-09-30 02:48, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Hi Loa,
If we want to make a change in practice,
I never suggested a change in practice. I asked a question.
Yeah you are right, I might have been over interpreting your question
in the context of having this type of question raised for t
Alissa,
Sent from my iPad
> On 29 Sep 2015, at 20:59, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>
> Hi Loa,
>
>>
>> The operational mode of most working groups are to make the existence of
>> an IPR disclosure know to the working group in working group adoption polls,
>> working group last calls and in other pos
All,
This is the second time I see questions from ADs on "discussion on IPR
disclosures".
As far as I understand this requirement on discussion on IPRs is new
and potentially dangerous.
First and most basic - working *can't* discuss the validity of an IPR
disclosure.
Potential discussion could
Working Group,
I agree that this is important and well executed - please let us
progress this draft in a timely fashion.
Also, I can't help wondering if there are some general lessons to draw
from this, e.g. make flag fields larger than what you imagine will be
ever used and in flag fields alway
-bgp
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
--
Loa Anderssonemail: l...@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert l...@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 73
implicit, can you make it explicit. I agree that
both VRRP and ND carries a strong tradition from IPv6, but maybe one
sentence in the Introduction explaining that the document is also
applicable to IPv6 would be good.
/Loa
--
Loa Anderssonemail: l...@ma
t revision will be
> draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-00. However, the replaced-by information in
> the datatracker will make the progression clear.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>> On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Loa Andersson wrote:
>> Authors, wg and chairs,
>>
uot;26 instances of lines with
non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4 addresses".
6. First paragraph on page 12 says "both ingress and egress PE routers
MUST NOT decrement the TTL",
The meaning is unclear, can one of them do it or neither?
7. Do we need to consider IPv6?
Other than this I
Group Document, on which you are
of course all welcome to comment.
Eric could you please resubmit as draft-ietf-bess-pta-flags-00
Thank you
M&T
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
--
Loa Ander
29 matches
Mail list logo
