Hi Xufeng,
Sounds good.
Acee
From: Xufeng Liu
Date: Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 5:03 PM
To: Acee Lindem
Cc: Tom Petch , Stephane Litkowski
, "lsr@ietf.org" ,
"draft-ietf-ospf-y...@ietf.org" ,
"draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-ty...@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ospf-yang
Hi Acee, Tom, and All
Hi Acee, Tom, and All,
Several authors of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types had a brief discussion on
this topic. Our take on the te-node-id and te-router-id is:
- In TEAS, the te-node-id specified in draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types has a
wider use scope than IP MPLS TE. The system may or may not run O
Hi Les,
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:51 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
wrote:
> Yoshi -
>
> Thanx for taking the time to review.
>
> I can appreciate that this may the first time you have looked at RFC7810 -
> let alone the bis draft. As a result you have commented on content which is
> common to the bi
On December 5, 2018 at 7:52:00 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) (
ginsb...@cisco.com) wrote:
Les:
You are right in pointing out that the changes made to rfc7810 are the ones
mentioned in the appendix. That was the motivation that originated this
work.
However, this document doesn’t just modify rfc78
Hi Tom,
I think the only action here is for the authors of
draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types to fix their te-node-id definition. As for the
OSPF Router ID and OSPF/ISIS TE Router IDs we can't change the decades old
definitions to achieve uniformity.
Thanks,
Acee
On 12/5/18, 11:12 AM, "tom petch"
I am unaware of any IPR, apart from the one disclosed [1].
Regards,
Dhruv
BTW the WG adopted I-D [2] is already posted, but I wanted to make
sure that my response is archived on the list.
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3351/
[2]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discover
Hi Suresh,
On 06/12/18 16:07 , Suresh Krishnan wrote:
On Dec 6, 2018, at 6:43 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
Hi Suresh,
please see inline:
On 06/12/18 06:36 , Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-2
> On Dec 6, 2018, at 6:43 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
>
> Hi Suresh,
>
> please see inline:
>
> On 06/12/18 06:36 , Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>> Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20: No Objection
>>
>> When responding,
Personally, I think the structure of this draft reads perfectly fine. The
referenced RFCs for use case and architecture were introduced at a point where
the reader’s interest in more background information would naturally come into
play. I think we should probably focus on more of the technical
Hi Suresh,
please see inline:
On 06/12/18 06:36 , Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses includ
On 05/12/18 17:34 , Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
Hi, Acee,
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 6:37 PM Acee Lindem (acee) mailto:a...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hi Spencer,
I'm replying as document shepherd.
It's a pleasure to be talking when we're not both sleepwalking on a 777 :-)
Please note that al
11 matches
Mail list logo
