Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-09: Yes
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 refer to
Hi Roman,
The changes discussed are reflected in the updated version posted:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-09
Thanks,
Ketan
On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 1:56 PM Ketan Talaulikar
wrote:
> Hi Roman,
>
> Thanks for your review and please check inline below
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.
Title : OSPF BFD Strict-Mode
Authors : Ketan Talaulikar
Peter Psenak
Hi Rob/Acee,
Thanks for your suggestions. We've just posted an update with the changes
as discussed:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-07
Thanks,
Ketan
On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 10:27 PM Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
>
>
> *From: *"Rob Wilton (rwilton)"
Hi Eric,
We've just posted an update that includes the changes we discussed:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-07
Thanks,
Ketan
On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 4:28 PM Ketan Talaulikar
wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> IMHO the reference to IEEE801.1AX needs to be normative.
Hi Roman,
Thanks for your review and please check inline below for responses.
We've just posted an update:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-07
On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 1:39 AM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Roman Danyliw has entered
Hi Lars,
We've just posted an update that includes the text as discussed:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-07
I hope that this addresses your DISCUSS.
Thanks,
Ketan
On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 3:44 PM Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> Hi Ketan, et al,
>
>
>
> *From:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.
Title : Advertising Layer 2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in
OSPF
Authors : Ketan Talaulikar
Hi all,
I'm going to say what I can remember before I read the thread. I was PCE
co-chair as this work went through.
There was a feeling that using the IGPs for carrying "stuff" was not a wise
idea. It was one thing to exchange information that all participants in the
protocol needed to
Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-06: 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 refer
John -
So you are suggesting that Section 4 of the draft be modified to say:
"This introduction of additional sub-TLVs should be viewed as an exception to
the [RFC5088][RFC5089] policy, justified by the requirement to discover the
PCEP security support prior to establishing a PCEP session. The
Hi Les,
Thanks, that’s helpful. One comment, regarding
> Hard for me to justify modifying RFC 5088/5089 simply to add a pointer to
> GENINFO/OSPF-GT even if such an addition might be relevant.
what I was actually suggesting was that the paragraph in
John -
Thanx for finding the old email thread.
Folks also might want to look at this thread:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/NhezQqKwIvHK_9dDUmW0iuhyjDA/
In summary, I raised these points when the draft was adopted - but eventually
agreed to allow the draft to go forward.
The
Hi Acee,
Thanks. I have a few followups (addressed to the WG at large, not just you).
First, your point relates to OSPF. In the mail thread I cited, Les is talking
about IS-IS. Are the concerns there similar?
Second, you say "For non-routing information or advertising more information
without
Speaking as long-time LSR/OSPF WG Member and Co-author of RFC 4970 and RFC
7770:
When RFC 5088 was being standardized, there was concern over both advertising
non-routing information in OSPF and exceeding the maximum size of an OSPF
Router Information LSA which was limited to a single LSA
Tony –
We don’t agree – but that isn’t news.
Let me try to start a meaningful discussion.
Using the protocol to send what is best described as some subset of a PICS
means that we propose to use the IGP flooding mechanism to send static
information which the protocol itself cannot (and should
Hi Everyone,
+Adrian since he appears to have been the shepherd for RFC 5088, which is the
root of Lars’ DISCUSS.
+Hannes, Les, JP, Meral as people who may have more context on the question
Since I haven’t seen any replies to this DISCUSS yet I did a little digging.
The text in question:
Hi Rob,
From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)"
Date: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 11:51 AM
To: Acee Lindem , Ketan Talaulikar
Cc: The IESG , "draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bund...@ietf.org"
, "lsr-cha...@ietf.org"
, "lsr@ietf.org" , Christian Hopps
Subject: RE: Robert Wilton's No Objection on
Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-11: Discuss
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.)
Hi all,
> On Oct 3, 2022, at 8:37 AM, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
>
> [As wg-member]
>
> I think the draft should include a table of all top level TLVS as rows and
> for columns we have
>
> - "Implicit Single TLV Only" (e.g., no key info)
> - "Implicit Multi-TLV Only"
> - "Explicit Single
Tony & Les,
I do think we should be signalling node's enabled/active capabilities
including the ability to process various types of encoded PDUs in band.
I do not believe in live management planes. Sure getting stats, config push
etc ... it is all doable and deployed. But dynamic configuration
Hi Les,
> Folks may well complain that management tools are not as good as they need to
> be, but trying to compensate for this by adding management information into
> the protocol itself isn’t a good solution.
It is not a good solution. But it is the only practical solution available. At
Hi Acee, Ketan,
One other alternative could be to add an Informative reference to the base OSPF
YANG module (that is about to be an RFC), and indicate that the configuration
is expected to be an update or augmentation to that base OSPF YANG module?
Is there somewhere for these new config knobs
Hi Ketan,
From: Ketan Talaulikar
Date: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 10:44 AM
To: Acee Lindem
Cc: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" , The IESG ,
"draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bund...@ietf.org"
, "lsr-cha...@ietf.org"
, "lsr@ietf.org" , Christian Hopps
Subject: Re: Robert Wilton's No Objection on
Hi Acee,
Thanks for your quick response.
My question was : Can we put an informative reference to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-yang-augmentation-v1/
(of which you are co-author) in the OSPF L2 Bundles draft?
This assumes that an upcoming version of this augmentation-v1
Hi Ketan,
See inlie.
From: Ketan Talaulikar
Date: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 10:23 AM
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)"
Cc: The IESG , "draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bund...@ietf.org"
, "lsr-cha...@ietf.org"
, "lsr@ietf.org" , Christian Hopps
, Acee Lindem
Subject: Re: Robert Wilton's No Objection on
Hi Rob,
Thanks for your review and please check inline below for responses.
The updates as discussed below will be included in the next update.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 3:14 PM Robert Wilton via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
Hi Eric,
IMHO the reference to IEEE801.1AX needs to be normative. FWIW, this is the
case also in RFC8668 that provides the similar functionality in ISIS.
Thanks,
Ketan
On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 4:23 PM Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
wrote:
> Hello Ketan
>
>
>
> Thank you for your quick reply and the
Hello Ketan
Thank you for your quick reply and the updated document.
I am still unclear, though, that IEEE802.1AX is normative or informative.
Nothing critical anyway.
Regards
-éric
From: Ketan Talaulikar
Date: Tuesday, 4 October 2022 at 11:03
To: Eric Vyncke
Cc: The IESG ,
Hi Ketan, et al,
From: Ketan Talaulikar
Date: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 4:34 AM
To: Lars Eggert
Cc: The IESG , "draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bund...@ietf.org"
, "lsr-cha...@ietf.org"
, "lsr@ietf.org" , Christian Hopps
, Acee Lindem , John Scudder
Subject: Re: Lars Eggert's Discuss on
Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-06: 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 refer
Hi Eric,
Thanks for your review and please check inline below for responses.
The changes as discussed below will reflect in the next draft update.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 1:20 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
wrote:
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
>
Hi Lars,
Thanks for your confirmation.
Acee/John, I haven't received any response (objection or support) from the
WG on this change. I believe this may be a good interim step until the WG
considers any IANA registry reorganization. Can you please share your views
as shepherd and AD respectively?
Hi Roman,
Thanks for your review and please check inline below for responses.
The changes as discussed below will reflect in the next update of the draft.
On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 11:27 PM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot
Hi Roman,
thanks for your comments, please see inline (##PP):
On 03/10/2022 22:09, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker wrote:
Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-24: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-06: Yes
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 refer to
Chris -
Inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Hopps
> Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 5:52 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: Christian Hopps ; Robert Raszuk
> ; Tony Li ; Henk Smit
> ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
37 matches
Mail list logo
