Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04

Changwang - It is very important to note ... > > 2. The Draft #1 utilizes the existing mechanisms [RFC7794] and [RFC9084] to > indicate reachability by checking whether the originator information is > >NULL. This statement is incorrect. There is no existing mechanism defined in the

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-liu-lsr-mpls-inspection-msd-01.txt

that needs to be made explicit (as RFC 9088 did) and some explanation as to “why” should be included in the draft. Les From: Tony Li On Behalf Of Tony Li Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 7:15 AM To: liu.ya...@zte.com.cn Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; mpls ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] New

Re: [Lsr] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-liu-lsr-mpls-inspection-msd-01.txt

Yao – Both RFC 8476(OSPF) and RFC 8491(IS-IS) define MSD advertisements with per-link scope and per-node scope. Your draft only states: “If a router has multiple interfaces with different capabilities of reading the maximum label stack depth, the router MUST advertise the smallest value

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04 (Fixed draft name)

I support WG adoption. The problem is a useful problem to solve and the solution defined in the document has been implemented and proven to work. Les > -Original Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 1:07 PM > To: lsr > Cc:

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call IPR Poll for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-04

I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR. Les From: Acee Lindem Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 4:20 PM To: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flood...@ietf.org Cc: lsr Subject: WG Last Call IPR Poll for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-04 Authors, A cornucopia of IPR

Re: [Lsr] Andrew Alston's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-03: (with COMMENT)

Andrew - Thanx for the review. S-bit is dataplane independent because it is applicable to both SR-MPLS and SRv6. Les > -Original Message- > From: Andrew Alston via Datatracker > Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2023 6:09 AM > To: The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919...@ietf.org;

Re: [Lsr] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis-04: (with COMMENT)

Rob - Thanx for the review. Yes, the update to the Introduction was done in response to Warren's comment. Some offline discussion resulted in adding this to the Introduction rather than the Abstract. Les > -Original Message- > From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker > Sent: Thursday,

Re: [Lsr] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis-04: (with COMMENT)

Lars - Thanx for the review. Responses inline - though I have to say your section references are a "little bit off" - not sure why. > -Original Message- > From: Lars Eggert via Datatracker > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 11:24 PM > To: The IESG > Cc:

Re: [Lsr] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis-03

Scott - Thanx for your review. I have uploaded V4 of the draft with the change you suggested. Les > -Original Message- > From: Scott Kelly via Datatracker > Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 9:12 AM > To: sec...@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org;

Re: [Lsr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-02: (with COMMENT)

Done and posted new versions for both 8919bis and 8920bis. Les From: John Scudder Sent: Friday, May 19, 2023 7:41 AM To: Warren Kumari Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; The IESG ; draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; cho...@chopps.org Subject: Re: Warren

Re: [Lsr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-02: (with COMMENT)

Warren - Thanx for the thoughtful (and entertaining ) review. I have no objection to adding a forward reference to the "changes" section for both this document and draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis. My only concern is whether this violates the guideline that the "abstract should be complete in

Re: [Lsr] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-01

Watson - Where are we with this discission? Have my responses clarified things sufficiently or do you still have unresolved issues? Thanx. Les > -Original Message- > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Sent: Friday, May 5, 2023 4:54 PM > To: Watson Ladd > Cc: secdir ;

Re: [Lsr] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-01

age- > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 1:00 PM > To: Robert Sparks ; John Scudder > > Cc: gen-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis@ietf.org; > last-c...@ietf.org; > lsr@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-

Re: [Lsr] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-01

Watson - Please see LES2: inline. > -Original Message- > From: Watson Ladd > Sent: Friday, May 5, 2023 3:32 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: secdir ; draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis@ietf.org; last- > c...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Secdir last call

Re: [Lsr] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-01

Watson - Before responding to your comments, I point out that this is a bis of RFC 8919 - and it makes no changes to the protocol extensions defined in RFC 8919 - it only provides some clarifications so that readers/implementors are more likely to have a common understanding. The Security

Re: [Lsr] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-01

Joseph - Thanx for your review. Les > -Original Message- > From: Joseph Yee via Datatracker > Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2023 8:35 PM > To: a...@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Artart last call review of

Re: [Lsr] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-01

> -Original Message- > From: Robert Sparks > Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 11:18 AM > To: John Scudder ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > > Cc: gen-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis@ietf.org; > last-c...@ietf.org; > lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Genart last call review of d

Re: [Lsr] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-01

Robert - Thanx for your review - apologies for the delay in responding. Please see inline. > -Original Message- > From: Robert Sparks via Datatracker > Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 1:09 PM > To: gen-...@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org;

Re: [Lsr] Last Call: (IS-IS Application-Specific Link Attributes) to Proposed Standard

Tom - I have submitted V1 to address all of the comments from you that I deemed possible/desirable to do. Please see responses inline as to the unaddressed issues. > -Original Message- > From: tom petch > Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 4:55 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ;

Re: [Lsr] Last Call: (IS-IS Application-Specific Link Attributes) to Proposed Standard

Tom - https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml At the very top it says: "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" Les > -Original Message- > From: tom petch > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 9:05 AM > To: John Scudder > Cc: cho...@chopps.org;

Re: [Lsr] Last Call: (IS-IS Application-Specific Link Attributes) to Proposed Standard

Tom - Thanx for catching this. John - will correct this in the next version. Also to John - if you have provided a review of the bis draft (as you suggest below) I don’t seem to have seen it. Did you send it to the list?? Or are you referring to your comments from last year which resulted in

Re: [Lsr] IETF-116 LSR - IGP extensions for Advertising Offset for Flex-Algorithm

y detailed in the draft. Otherwise, casual readers will think that nothing is lost when the encoding efficiency is used. This isn’t a minor point in my view. Les > -Original Message- > From: Louis Chan > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 11:21 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)

Re: [Lsr] IETF-116 LSR - IGP extensions for Advertising Offset for Flex-Algorithm

for the useful discussion. Les > -Original Message- > From: Louis Chan > Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 8:45 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Acee Lindem > > Cc: lsr ; Krzysztof Szarkowicz ; > Weiqiang Cheng > Subject: RE: [Lsr] IETF-116 LSR - IGP extension

Re: [Lsr] IETF-116 LSR - IGP extensions for Advertising Offset for Flex-Algorithm

Louis – I am having increasing difficulty in correlating what you say in this thread and what is actually written in the draft. Please see responses inline. Look for LES2: From: Louis Chan Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 7:46 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Acee Lindem Cc: lsr ; Krzysztof

Re: [Lsr] IETF-116 LSR - IGP extensions for Advertising Offset for Flex-Algorithm

Louis - Please see inline. > -Original Message- > From: Louis Chan > Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 11:01 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Acee Lindem > > Cc: lsr ; Krzysztof Szarkowicz ; > Weiqiang Cheng > Subject: RE: [Lsr] IETF-116 LSR - IGP ex

Re: [Lsr] IETF-116 LSR - IGP extensions for Advertising Offset for Flex-Algorithm

OK - since Acee opened the door - here are some comments from me - starting with the most important. (BTW - I still have limited enthusiasm for this draft.) 1)The proposal places some restrictions on how operators provision their network in terms of assigning SIDs and reserving space for

Re: [Lsr] NewVersionNotificationfordraft-cheng-ospf-adjacency-suppress-00.txt

the restarting router before that router is ready to forward them. So long as whatever solution you come up with addresses that issue, then I am satisfied. Thanx. Les > -Original Message- > From: Acee Lindem > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 9:00 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)

Re: [Lsr] Comments on draft-chen-lsr-isis-big-tlv-00

Chris - > -Original Message- > From: Christian Hopps > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 11:40 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: Christian Hopps ; Huaimo Chen > ; draft-chen-lsr-isis-big-tlv.auth...@ietf.org; > lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Comments on dra

Re: [Lsr] Comments on draft-chen-lsr-isis-big-tlv-00

ay, March 28, 2023 6:45 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Christian Hopps > > Cc: Huaimo Chen ; draft-chen-lsr-isis-big- > tlv.auth...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Lsr] Comments on draft-chen-lsr-isis-big-tlv-00 > > Les, all > > > From:

Re: [Lsr] NewVersionNotificationfordraft-cheng-ospf-adjacency-suppress-00.txt

the updated Router LSA from the restarting router and the updated Router LSA on the neighbor there is still some risk. Les > -Original Message- > From: Acee Lindem > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 2:19 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: Liyan Gong ; Tony Przygienda &g

Re: [Lsr] Comments on draft-chen-lsr-isis-big-tlv-00

tion, needs to be able to receive > >> > sub-TLVs 2,4,6,8,10 from A. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > There is no way that A can advertise all 10 sub-TLVs in a way which > >> > allows both B and C to correctly process the sub-TLVs th

Re: [Lsr] Comments on draft-chen-lsr-isis-big-tlv-00

e said of any style.  > -Original Message- > From: Christian Hopps > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 7:27 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: Huaimo Chen ; draft-chen-lsr-isis-big- > tlv.auth...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Comments on draft-chen-l

Re: [Lsr] UPA and planned/unplanned signalling

Shraddha - Glad we have come to a common understanding. One point inline. > -Original Message- > From: Shraddha Hegde > Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 10:47 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: RE: UPA and planned/unplanned signalling > > Les

Re: [Lsr] UPA and planned/unplanned signalling

ginal Message- > From: Shraddha Hegde > Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 9:25 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: RE: UPA and planned/unplanned signalling > > Hi Les, > > Pls see inline for replies. > > > Juniper Business Use Only >

[Lsr] UPA and planned/unplanned signalling

Shraddha - To follow up on our discussion over chat at the LSR meeting yesterday... At a remote ABR, if BGP had already been told about a planned node maintenance event (by means that is outside the scope of the UPA draft), then BGP would have moved traffic away from the node on which the

Re: [Lsr] NewVersionNotificationfordraft-cheng-ospf-adjacency-suppress-00.txt

Tony - From: Tony Przygienda Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 5:11 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Cc: Acee Lindem ; Liyan Gong ; chen.mengxiao ; lsr ; Weiqiang Cheng ; linchangwang Subject: Re: [Lsr] NewVersionNotificationfordraft-cheng-ospf-adjacency-suppress-00.txt I didn't say "bigge

Re: [Lsr] NewVersionNotificationfordraft-cheng-ospf-adjacency-suppress-00.txt

: Tony Przygienda Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 3:29 PM To: Acee Lindem Cc: Liyan Gong ; chen.mengxiao ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr ; Weiqiang Cheng ; linchangwang Subject: Re: [Lsr] NewVersionNotificationfordraft-cheng-ospf-adjacency-suppress-00.txt thought about it. there are also other

Re: [Lsr] Comments on draft-chen-lsr-isis-big-tlv-00

Huaimo - Please see inline. From: Huaimo Chen Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2023 3:41 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org; draft-chen-lsr-isis-big-tlv.auth...@ietf.org Subject: Re: Comments on draft-chen-lsr-isis-big-tlv-00 Hi Les, Thanks much for your comments. My responses

[Lsr] Comments on draft-chen-lsr-isis-big-tlv-00

Folks - This draft proposes a new way to handle advertisement of more than 255 bytes of information about a given object. It defines a new "container TLV" to carry additional information about an object beyond the (up to) 255 bytes of information advertised in an existing TLV. The draft

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms Reverse Affinity Constraint" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-flex-algo-reverse-affinity-01

I support adoption of this very useful extension to flex-algo capabilities. Les > -Original Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem > Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 5:09 AM > To: lsr > Subject: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms Reverse > Affinity

Re: [Lsr] Comments on draft-ietf-lsr-distoptflood-01

Tony – Inline…but I agree we can let this simmer for a while… From: Antoni Przygienda Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 12:55 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lsr-distoptflood.auth...@ietf.org Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-lsr-distoptflood-01 Thanks, most

[Lsr] Comments on draft-wang-lsr-redistribution-credibility-id

(Changing the subject to avoid confusion with all other "slot requests") I agree with Acee that there are existing solutions for this problem space. I also believe your approach is quite problematic. To maintain the count ("TTR") accurately, you would require full deployment of this extension

[Lsr] Comments on draft-ietf-lsr-distoptflood-01

I am somewhat belated in commenting on the updated draft - apologies for that. I thank the authors for addressing my comments and think the draft is significantly improved. I do still have two issues - one minor and one more significant. Minor issue: I think you need a formal IANA section

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-cheng-ospf-adjacency-suppress-00.txt

+1 to what Acee has said. As historical context, the SA bit was defined in IS-IS precisely because IS-IS adjacency state machine does NOT include LSPDB sync as a requirement before the adjacency is usable (unlike OSPF). OSPF does not need SA bit. Les > -Original Message- > From:

Re: [Lsr] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9350 (7376)

(At the risks of giving this issue more attention than it merits…) My interpretation of the filed Errata is that the submitter incorrectly thought that the text should be referring to the protocol (IS-IS) and that the text had been inadvertently truncated. Consider that the “Note” says:

Re: [Lsr] Work Group Last Call IPR Call for 'Dynamic-Flooding on Dense Graphs" - draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding

I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR. Les > -Original Message- > From: Acee Lindem > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 1:46 PM > To: draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flood...@ietf.org > Cc: lsr > Subject: Work Group Last Call IPR Call for 'Dynamic-Flooding on Dense > Graphs" -

Re: [Lsr] Info on Authentication type for Keyed MD5 and HMAC-SHA2 family

Acee - Note that in IS-IS there is no keyid in the authentication TLV for MD5 (see RFC 5304), but there is a 16 bit keyid for crypto: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5310.html#section-3.1 That said, I agree there is no significant advantage to including the authentication type. Les >

Re: [Lsr] Two small potential typing errors in draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

Chris - Thanx - my bad. Never noticed the second link. Les > -Original Message- > From: Christian Hopps > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 8:12 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: Christian Hopps ; Chris Parker > ; Shraddha Hegde ; > Acee Lindem ; lsr@i

Re: [Lsr] Two small potential typing errors in draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

to Merlot and Shiraz and it would have no impact on traffic. Les > -Original Message- > From: Christian Hopps > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 4:54 AM > To: Chris Parker > Cc: Christian Hopps ; Shraddha Hegde > ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; > Acee Lindem ; ls

Re: [Lsr] Two small potential typing errors in draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

Chris – Indeed – welcome to the forum. The concept of area address in IS-IS has confused many – including folks with a much longer history than you. Please see inline. From: Chris Parker Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 2:16 AM To: Shraddha Hegde Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Acee Lindem

Re: [Lsr] Two small potential typing errors in draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

Disclaimer: I am not an author of the flex-algo draft. However, the text regarding "scope" of the FAD sub-TLV is in the context of the flooding scope of the containing Router Capability TLV (as defined in RFC 7981). There we have two scopes defined: 1)Area/level scope (S-bit clear) Such

Re: [Lsr] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-04.txt

Shraddha - I think Mengxiao has raised a legitimate point. The use of max-metric to exclude a link is at best redundant in flex-algo since there are existing ways to exclude a link. Simply quoting RFC 5305 doesn’t really help in understanding the motivation of the authors in adding this

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-04.txt

Shraddha - Regarding the new Generic Metric sub-TLV, there is a significant omission in the draft: Given that (as you discuss in Sections 2.1 and 2.2) some metric types cannot be advertised in the new Generic Metric sub-TLV because they are specified to be advertised in a different encoding,

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis-01.txt

(Resending - minus id-announce list) This new version addresses those comments from Tom Petch which the authors agreed to address. I have previously replied to Tom indicating why some of his comments might not be addressed. Les > -Original Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis-01.txt

This new version addresses those comments from Tom Petch which the authors agreed to address. I have previously replied to Tom indicating why some of his comments might not be addressed. Les > -Original Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org > Sent: Tuesday,

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis-00

comments are being seriously considered, even if - in the end - the drafts are not changed in the way you suggest. More inline. Look for LES2. > -Original Message- > From: tom petch > Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2022 9:00 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Christian Ho

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis-00

Tom - > -Original Message- > From: tom petch > Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2022 2:52 AM > To: Christian Hopps ; lsr@ietf.org > Cc: lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis-00 > > From: Lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis-00

I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft. Les > -Original Message- > From: Christian Hopps > Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 5:20 AM > To: lsr@ietf.org > Cc: cho...@chopps.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lsr- > rfc8920...@ietf.org > Subject: WG Last

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-00

I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft. Les > -Original Message- > From: Christian Hopps > Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 5:20 AM > To: lsr@ietf.org > Cc: cho...@chopps.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lsr- > rfc8919...@ietf.org > Subject: WG Last

Re: [Lsr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-02.txt

Bruno - Some responses inline - speaking only for myself - not necessarily for all of the co-authors... From: Lsr On Behalf Of bruno.decra...@orange.com Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2022 6:04 AM To: Tony Li ; lsr Subject: Re: [Lsr] Fwd: New Version Notification for

Re: [Lsr] Questions on draft-white-lsr-distoptflood

nothing needs to be said in this regard isn’t justified. Les From: Tony Przygienda Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 10:27 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Cc: draft-white-lsr-distoptflood.auth...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] Questions on draft-white-lsr-distoptflood On Mon, Nov 28

Re: [Lsr] Questions on draft-white-lsr-distoptflood

Tony - From: Tony Przygienda Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 10:06 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Cc: r...@riw.us; draft-white-lsr-distoptflood.auth...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Lsr] Questions on draft-white-lsr-distoptflood On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 6:22 PM Les Ginsberg

Re: [Lsr] Questions on draft-white-lsr-distoptflood

Hi Russ! > -Original Message- > From: r...@riw.us > Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 4:56 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Tony Przygienda > > Cc: draft-white-lsr-distoptflood.auth...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re[2]: [Lsr] Questions on draft-white-lsr-di

Re: [Lsr] Questions on draft-white-lsr-distoptflood

in the draft and an analysis of the benefits under some realistic flooding scenarios. Les From: Tony Przygienda Sent: Friday, November 25, 2022 1:06 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Cc: draft-white-lsr-distoptflood.auth...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] Questions on draft-white-lsr

[Lsr] Questions on draft-white-lsr-distoptflood

Draft authors - The WG adoption call reminded me that I had some questions following the presentation of this draft at IETF 114 which we decided to "take to the list" - but we/I never did. Looking at the minutes, there was this exchange: Les: I'm not convinced that you don't need to

Re: [Lsr] draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce / UPA IS-IS semantics

Chris/David - > > I was replying to Peter saying that implementations are using the max metric > announcements to avoid sending traffic to overload routers. [LES:] Are you claiming this because you know this to be true - or are you just speculating that an implementation "might" do this? If

Re: [Lsr] Reply: Comments on draft-yue-lsr-loop-detection-for-imported-routes

ory. Thanx. Les From: yuezhuo Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 6:36 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; draft-yue-lsr-loop-detection-for-imported-routes.auth...@ietf.org Cc: lsr@ietf.org Subject: Reply: Comments on draft-yue-lsr-loop-detection-for-imported-routes Hi Les, Thanks for your comme

[Lsr] Last Call Request for draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis

The authors of draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis request WG last call. The changes in this bis draft are clarifications to the existing RFC which have been thoroughly discussed by the WG. The changes were originally discussed over a year

[Lsr] Last Call Request for draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis

The authors of draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis request WG last call. The changes in this bis draft are clarifications to the existing RFC which have been thoroughly discussed by the WG. The changes were originally discussed over a year

[Lsr] Comments on draft-yue-lsr-loop-detection-for-imported-routes

Draft authors - I have read the draft. Everything you propose has already been defined in RFC 7794. This draft is completely redundant and should be abandoned. In light of this, you should consider withdrawing your item from the WG meeting agenda - there is no reason for the WG to consider this

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-01.txt

. If you are telling me that I do not need to restate that no encoding changes are required - point taken. Les > -Original Message- > From: Christian Hopps > Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 2:29 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: bruno.decra...@orange.com; Christian

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-01.txt

of encoding MP-TLVs requires no protocol extensions. This in no way conflicts with the previous sentence. Please see inline. > -Original Message- > From: bruno.decra...@orange.com > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 6:22 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Christian Hopps >

Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-ppsenak-lsr-rfc8920bis-02

WG Chairs - I note that the draft is still in Call For Adoption By WG Issued state. ?? I had hoped to be able to request WG Last Call at IETF 115. Is there anything blocking this? Les > -Original Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of Christian Hopps > Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022

Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc8919bis-02

WG Chairs - I note that the draft is still in Call For Adoption By WG Issued state. ?? I had hoped to be able to request WG Last Call at IETF 115. Is there anything blocking this? Les > -Original Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of Christian Hopps > Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022

[Lsr] Spreadsheet Documenting MP-TLV support

(starting a new thread) Folks - Based on a suggestion from Chris >> I think the [multi-tlv] 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 TLV

Re: [Lsr] Multi-part TLVs for extending sub-tlv space...

necessary i.e., please define your recommended solution. Thanx. Les > -Original Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of Christian Hopps > Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2022 11:51 AM > To: Christian Hopps > Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Tony Li ; > Peter Psenak (ppsen

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-01.txt

2 2:48 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: Christian Hopps ; Tony Li ; Peter > Psenak (ppsenak) ; Robert Raszuk > ; Henk Smit ; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv- > 01.txt > > > I simply turned yo

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-01.txt

rtised. Les > -Original Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of Christian Hopps > Sent: Friday, October 7, 2022 4:17 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: Tony Li ; Christian Hopps ; Peter > Psenak (ppsenak) ; Robert Raszuk > ; Henk Smit ; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] New

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-01.txt

Tony - > > Your summarization is incorrect. > > The proposal is to advertise a advisory message that indicates that a node is > ready to receive MP-TLVs. It prohibits nothing. [LES:] That is what you are proposing - but others in the thread have proposed other ideas. For example, in an

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-01.txt

Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2022 4:59 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: Christian Hopps ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) > ; Tony Li ; Robert Raszuk > ; Henk Smit ; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv- > 01.txt > > > Se

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-01.txt

s in order to send MP-TLVs. As regards deployment controls, I have no problem with recommending that implementations provide ways to control the enablement of the sending of MP-TLVs. Les > -Original Message- > From: Christian Hopps > Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2022 3:28 PM

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-01.txt

Chris - > -Original Message- > From: Christian Hopps > Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2022 1:36 PM > To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) > Cc: Christian Hopps ; Tony Li ; Les > Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Robert Raszuk > ; Henk Smit ; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Versio

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-01.txt

significant issue at the moment is that such TLVs are currently marked as "Explicit multi-part TLV allowed" in the spreadsheet and this is wrong. Les > -Original Message- > From: Christian Hopps > Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2022 1:56 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsber

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-01.txt

ly doesn’t apply. Les > -Original Message- > From: Christian Hopps > Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2022 9:34 AM > To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) > Cc: Tony Li ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; > Christian Hopps ; Robert Raszuk > ; Henk Smit ; lsr@ietf.org &

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-01.txt

/draft is called for. Certainly well beyond anything I am thinking about. Les From: Robert Raszuk Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 2:41 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Cc: bruno.decra...@orange.com; Tony Li ; Christian Hopps ; Henk Smit ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-01.txt

. Les From: Robert Raszuk Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 1:41 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Cc: bruno.decra...@orange.com; Tony Li ; Christian Hopps ; Henk Smit ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-01.txt Hi Les, Yes you have correctly

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-01.txt

> > RFC3787 which was published 1 month prior to RFC3784 which RFC5305 > replaced. > > "5. Migration from Narrow Metrics to Wide . . ." [LES:] Indeed - RFC 3787 - quite a useful document. Note this section was based on input from actual implementations. So folks implemented migration

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-01.txt

of the aspects that adds complexity. And it still does not result in a working network. So, no thanks. Les From: Robert Raszuk Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 12:40 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Cc: bruno.decra...@orange.com; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Tony Li ; Christian Hopps ; Henk Smit ; lsr

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-01.txt

Tony - From: Tony Li On Behalf Of Tony Li Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 7:57 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Cc: Christian Hopps ; Robert Raszuk ; Henk Smit ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-01.txt Hi Les, Using the protocol

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-01.txt

Chris - Please see inline. > -Original Message- > From: Christian Hopps > Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 7:24 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: Christian Hopps ; Robert Raszuk > ; Tony Li ; Henk Smit > ; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Versio

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-01.txt

ing that "sounds good" but in practice adds little value - yet places significant demands on implementations. Les From: Lsr On Behalf Of bruno.decra...@orange.com Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 2:29 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Tony Li ; Christian Hopps Cc: Robert Raszuk ; Henk Smit

Re: [Lsr] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

or similar...) I am fine with that. Les > -Original Message- > From: John Scudder > Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 12:31 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Lars Eggert ; > The IESG ; draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security- > supp...@iet

Re: [Lsr] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Lindem (acee) > Cc: Lars Eggert ; The IESG ; draft-ietf-lsr- > pce-discovery-security-supp...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr > ; p...@ietf.org; Hannes Gredler ; Les > Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; JP Vasseur (jvasseur) > ; meral.shirazip...@polymtl.ca; Adrian Farrel > > Subject:

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-01.txt

topology can be used for the “management instance”, it would be possible to reduce the number of copies in the network. Thoughts?? Les From: Tony Li On Behalf Of Tony Li Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 9:16 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Cc: Christian Hopps ; Robert Raszuk ; Henk Smit ; lsr

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-01.txt

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 Notific

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-01.txt

Chris - > -Original Message- > From: Christian Hopps > Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 8:37 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: Robert Raszuk ; Tony Li ; Henk Smit > ; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr

Re: [Lsr] [Teas] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04: (with COMMENT)

John - Thank you for the followup. Murray - my sincere apologies for not responding to your comments. I remember reviewing your email but somehow I lost track of it and never responded. I have posted V7 of the draft to address both the original comments from Murray and the additional comments

Re: [Lsr] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04: (with DISCUSS)

V6 of the draft has been posted with the changes agreed upon w Alvaro. AFAIK all outstanding comments have been addressed - please let me know if any further changes are required. Les > -Original Message- > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022

Re: [Lsr] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04: (with DISCUSS)

Alvaro - > -Original Message- > From: Alvaro Retana > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 10:28 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; The IESG > Cc: Paul Wouters ; cho...@chopps.org; lsr- > cha...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316...@ietf.org; Eric Vyncke > (evyn

Re: [Lsr] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04: (with DISCUSS)

Les > -Original Message- > From: Alvaro Retana > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 12:31 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; The IESG > Cc: Paul Wouters ; cho...@chopps.org; lsr- > cha...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316...@ietf.org; Eric Vyncke > (evyncke) > ;

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >