Russ -
I think you have too many email addresses. 😊
Inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: op...@riw.us
> Sent: Monday, January 04, 2021 10:01 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; 7ri...@gmail.com;
> 'Shraddha Hegde' ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [L
Russ -
Happy New Year.
Responses inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of 7ri...@gmail.com
> Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2020 4:49 AM
> To: 'Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)' ;
> 'Shraddha Hegde' ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Ve
Zhenqiang -
In regards to:
[Zhenqiang]Since paths for IP flex-algo are calculated within specific MT, I
think one new top-level TLV for ISIS is enough to advertise prefix reachability
associated with a Flex-Algorithm, that is the one defined in section 6.1. MTID
can be used to indicate it is
Shraddha -
Thanx for the responses.
Please see inline.
From: Shraddha Hegde
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2020 9:30 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-white-lsr-distoptflood-00.txt
Hi Les,
Thanks for the review and comments.
Pls see
I support WG adoption.
This is another useful tool to support traffic engineering in real world
deployments.
Les
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2020 1:13 PM
To: lsr
Subject: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm)
In IP Ne
I have reviewed the draft and support progressing this document.
Les
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 10:15 AM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "YANG Module for IS-IS Reverse
Metric" - draft-ietf-lsr-yang-isis-reverse-metric
Draft authors -
I note that as the draft has evolved over the years a number of mechanisms have
been removed (revised adjacency formation and auto tier detection) and the
draft now focuses exclusively on flooding optimizations.
The draft now also references the recent work done in
draft-ietf
FYI –
This has been approved by the DEs and IANA has updated the registry.
Les
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 1:45 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Huaimo Chen
; Christian Hopps ; Hannes
Gredler
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Alvaro Retana
Subject: Re
Request noted.
Chris/Hannes/myself will discuss and get back to you.
Les
From: Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 12:21 PM
To: Huaimo Chen ; Christian Hopps
; Hannes Gredler ; Les Ginsberg
(ginsberg)
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Alvaro Retana
Subject: Re: Early Allocation for IS
that I am – like others – supportive of this work – but
I think WG adoption at this stage (in ANY WG) is premature.
Les
From: Huzhibo
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 7:20 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
; Susan Hares ; 'Jeff Tantsura'
; Stephane
The points which Ketan has made regarding the use of MTU advertisements defined
in RFC 7176 are very valid. Indeed, the contents of the sub-TLV defined in
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7176.html#section-2.4 depend upon the TRILL
specific MTU-probe/MTU-ack procedures defined in
https://www.r
This simple extension to RFC 5316 is analogous to the extension to RFC 4971
defined in RFC 7981. As Acee indicated, this is needed to support operation in
IPv6 only networks.
I support WG adoption as a co-author.
I would appreciate WG support so we can complete this necessary extension.
Les
I am not aware of any relevant undisclosed IPR associated with the bis draft.
Les
From: Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2020 7:50 AM
To: draft-chen-lsr-isis-rfc5316...@ietf.org
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: IPR Call for "ISIS Extensions in Support of Inter-AS MPLS and GMPLS
TE" - d
that.
Les
From: Eric Gray
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 6:39 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; rtg-...@ietf.org;
lsr-cha...@ietf.org
Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Rtg-Dir Last Call review of draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo
Les,
Thanks for your helpful feedback on my
to consensus on your next
step.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Aijun Wang
> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 12:06 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; 'Christian Hopps'
>
> Cc: 'John E Drake' ; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org;
> &#x
o do this.
I cannot support the document moving forward with the content in the Appendices
included.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Aijun Wang
> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2020 7:08 PM
> To: 'Christian Hopps'
> Cc: 'John E Drake' ;
Eric –
I will let the draft authors respond to the bulk of your comments. But in
regards to your question/comment:
“I assume (but do not actually know) that a similar situation exists for the
new ISIS FAD Sub-TLV of the existing TLV Type 242 - i.e. - ISIS presumably has
well defined handling f
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Aijun Wang
> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 1:48 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: John E Drake ; Christian Hopps
> ; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura
> ; draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-origina...@
' ; 'John E Drake'
>
> Cc: 'Christian Hopps' ; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; Les Ginsberg
> (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-
> lsr-ospf-prefix-origina...@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Lsr] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-06
>
I support moving this document forward.
Similar functionality in IS-IS has proved useful.
I would however like to repeat comments I made earlier in the review of this
document.
The content of the Appendices should be removed.
The Appendices define and discuss deriving topology information from pr
I support WG adoption of this draft.
OSPF needs functionality equivalent to that defined for IS-IS in RFC 8668.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
> Sent: Friday, October 02, 2020 5:03 AM
> To: lsr@ietf.org
> Cc: lsr-cha...@ietf.org; Christian Hopps ; d
Ron -
Interesting proposal.
A few mundane - but I think still important - comments.
New IS-IS TLVs
There is no need to have two TLVs for each address-family - one for MTID #0 and
one for all non-zero MTIDs. One TLV/AF will suffice.
The reason we have separate TLVs today is
In support of what Tony has said, I think any comparison between what RIFT is
doing and what is proposed in this draft is inappropriate.
RIFT is able to determine what destinations exist in the network but are not
reachable via a certain subset of the topology – and then generate negative
adver
before defining it. It is
always possible that when the use case arises we will find that there are some
other issues which have been overlooked which might alter how this would be
advertised.
Les
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 8:19 AM
To: Les
Tony –
Inline.
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 8:56 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-03.txt
Hi Les,
[Les:] Any one of the IERs can be elected Area Leader, therefore all
Tony –
Inline.
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 5:40 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-03.txt
Les,
As per the draft:
Area Proxy TLV is advertised by IERs in their L2 LSP
claim that you need a new SID
type when you don’t.
Les
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 4:02 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-03.txt
Hi Les,
You have chosen to assign
Tony -
You have chosen to assign a prefix as the "Area Destination". This is fine with
me. But having done that, forwarding should be based on the existing mechanisms
for advertising a prefix and the associated prefix SID.
By doing that you avoid a number of problems:
* Duplicate SID adver
reas isn't
helping you.
Les
From: Huaimo Chen
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 3:18 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
; Acee Lindem (acee)
; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: LSR WG Adoption Poll for "IS-IS Topology-Transparent Zone" -
draft-chen-isis-ttz-11.txt
Hi L
: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 2:33 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Acee Lindem
(acee) ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "IS-IS Topology-Transparent Zone" -
draft-chen-isis-ttz-11.txt
Hi Les,
> I see no need for "abstraction at arbitrary boundaries". Are
I see no need for “abstraction at arbitrary boundaries”. Areas work just fine.
IS-IS already has smooth transition capability for merging/splitting areas.
Given both of the points above, I see no value in “smooth transition to/from
zone abstraction”.
If these are the principal distinguishing ch
Tony –
I am not “fighting”.
I just found your interpretation very hard to follow.
Moving on…
Les
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 12:33 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Robert Raszuk ; Christian Hopps ;
draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo@ietf.org
in/Max
Unidirectional Link Delay (34) and be done.
That's all.
Cheers,
R.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:04 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
mailto:40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
Tony –
As an author of both RFC 8570 and I-D.ietf-isis-te-app, I am not sure why you
are confused – nor why you g
Tony –
As an author of both RFC 8570 and I-D.ietf-isis-te-app, I am not sure why you
are confused – nor why you got misdirected to code point 33.
RFC 8570 (and its predecessor RFC 7810) define:
34 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
This sub-TLV contains two values:
“Min Delay: This
, 2020 11:46 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Bruno Decraene
; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-02
Hi Les,
1)Invent a new type of SID which is associated with an area.
In this case some variation of encodings defined in V2 of the draft are
: Tony Li
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2020 2:42 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Bruno Decraene
; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-02
Les,
Not sure why this needs to be explained.
Because we are not communicating well. We are each making
would not like to go down that path…
Les
From: Tony Li
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2020 9:32 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Bruno Decraene
; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-02
Les,
There then remains the question as to whether the
Tony -
From: Tony Li
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2020 4:26 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Bruno Decraene
; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-02
Les,
This would make the Area Prefix mandatory for Area Proxy, which is not desired.
We
Tony -
From: Tony Li
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2020 1:08 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Bruno Decraene
; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-02
Les,
a)Advertise the “Area Prefix” in the Area Proxy TLV – much as we do a router-id
today
Acee -
From: Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2020 12:31 PM
To: Tony Li ; Bruno Decraene
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-02
Hi Tony, Bruno, Les,
From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of To
Bruno -
Please see inline.
From: Lsr On Behalf Of bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2020 5:45 AM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-02
Hi,
I may be missing something but the SR Binding SID TLV extension is not clear
to me.
1. It does not see
10:47 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: bruno.decra...@orange.com; tony...@tony.li; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-02.txt
Hi Les,
Well I am talking about IP routable identifier which I can place on the front
of the packet and which
Robert –
Both OSPF and IS-IS have area identifiers which are advertised.
Why would we need to invent another identifier for an area?
Les
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2020 10:31 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: bruno.decra...@orange.com; tony...@tony.li; lsr@ietf.org
Bruno –
Inline.
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2020 8:52 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; tony...@tony.li
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-02.txt
Les,
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb
Bruno –
The concept of “Area SID” – at least to me – is “please forward to any node in
the Area advertising the Area SID”.
You, however, seem to be asking for either:
a)The node originating the Proxy LSP to advertise a Node SID for a loopback
address on that node
OR
b)The node originating th
Bruno -
Regarding the A-flag...
It may not matter much whichever way we decide - but the A-flag was invented
because at the time (prior to RFC 7794) there was no way to determine from
looking at a prefix reachability advertisement whether it was originated by the
advertising node or had been le
Bruno –
One of the reasons to use the Binding TLV to advertise the Area SID was that it
has been suggested that other use cases for Area SID – unrelated to Area Proxy
– may come along.
Therefore tying the advertisement to an Area Proxy TLV seems not the best
option if we want to allow for these
This update addresses review comments from:
Murray Kucherawy
Roman Danyliw
Benjamin Kaduk
Rob Wilton
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org
> Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2020 6:04 PM
> To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: [Lsr] I-D A
in
other ways.
Please reread the thread:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/?gbt=1&index=5GdFCy7zg8eCIGvQZpmAbOtrTjQ
Les
From: Lizhenbin
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 6:12 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org
Cc: wangyali
Subject: 答复: New Version Notification for
d
Huaimo -
I am not going to comment on the history issues - though I understand why that
is of significance to you.
Otherwise, I don't think you are appreciating the key point many of us are
making - which is that we do not need to introduce a new concept "zone" (subset
of an area).
It is suffi
Yali -
While it is kind of you to acknowledge many of us for our comments, in many
cases (myself included) what we told you is that this does not belong in the
IGPs.
Putting out a new draft which continues to push for advertising ifit in IGPs
(even if in different TLVs) does not indicate tha
+1
I think Henk has spoken eloquently here - as have others before him.
Abstracting an area may be useful - the WG has yet to fully decide on that.
But nothing so far has demonstrated that we need to go even further and
abstract a subset of an area.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From:
Rob -
Thanx for the review.
Responses inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 2:25 AM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org;
> lsr@ietf.org;
> Christian Hopps ; aretana.i...@gmail.com
ssues
and allow for non-disruptive introduction of the new functionality
into an existing network."
Let me know if this resolves the concerns.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Acee Lindem (acee)
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 9:38 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (gin
age-
> From: Benjamin Kaduk
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 4:24 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: The IESG ; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-...@ietf.org; lsr-
> cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; Christian Hopps ;
> aretana.i...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: Benjamin Kaduk'
Ben -
Thanx for your review.
Responses inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 2:11 PM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org;
> lsr@ietf.org;
> Christian Hopps ; aretana.i..
Leif -
Thanx for your review.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Leif Johansson via Datatracker
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 1:55 PM
> To: sec...@ietf.org
> Cc: last-c...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv@ietf.org
> Subject: Secdir last call review of draf
Acee -
Inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Acee Lindem (acee)
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 9:04 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Roman Danyliw
> ; The IESG
> Cc: lsr-cha...@ietf.org; aretana.i...@gmail.com; cho...@chopps.org; draft-
> ietf-lsr-isis-inva
Roman -
Thanx for the review.
Inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Roman Danyliw via
> Datatracker
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 7:40 AM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: lsr-cha...@ietf.org; aretana.i...@gmail.com; cho...@chopps.org; draft-
> ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-...@ietf.org; lsr
Murray -
Thanx for your review - and for catching the editorial issue.
We will address that in the next revision.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 12:21 AM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-...@ietf.org;
Codepoints
Registry)
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2020 11:19 AM
To: tony...@tony.li
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-01.txt
Tony –
Inline.
From: Tony Li mailto:tony1ath...@gmail.com>&
Martin -
Thanx for your review.
Responses inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Duke via Datatracker
> Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2020 9:08 AM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org;
> lsr@ietf.org;
> Christian Hopps ; aretana.i...@gmail.
Tony –
Inline.
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2020 11:12 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-01.txt
Hi Les,
Again, the subTLVs of the area proxy TLV are for the
Tony –
Inline.
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2020 8:29 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-01.txt
Hi Les,
The new definitions in the latest version in the
Tony –
The new definitions in the latest version in the draft are very close to what
we discussed in the earlier thread – so this looks pretty good to me.
I still have some concerns regarding the Area Segment SID.
You propose to advertise this in two places:
1)As a sub-TLV of the new Area Proxy
...
Les
From: Huaimo Chen
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2020 12:42 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Christian Hopps
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Request WG adoption of TTZ
Hi Les,
> I think what you are highlighting is that w TTZ an operator could apply the
> so
y you
should be focusing on things other than the flexibility of zones over areas..
Les
From: Huaimo Chen
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2020 11:13 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Christian Hopps
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Request WG adoption of TTZ
Hi Les,
Than
Huaimo -
In regards to merging/splitting areas, IS-IS base protocol provides a way to do
this hitlessly (this was discussed some years ago when IS-IS TTZ draft was
first introduced).
So if the major difference/advantage between area-proxy and ttz is the ability
to use zones to handle area mergi
Tony –
Inline.
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 2:37 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Hannes Gredler ;
draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy.auth...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Codepoints for
draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy
Behalf Of tony...@tony.li
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 12:52 PM
To: Hannes Gredler
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ;
draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy.auth...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Codepoints for
draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy
Hi,
The authors have conferred and we
Alvaro -
Thanx.
V2 of the draft has been posted. I believe it addresses all of your comments.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Alvaro Retana
> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 3:05 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-
> t...@ietf.org
> Cc: l
I support WG adoption of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection .
(I also support the WG adoption of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy/ )
I believe the problem space addressed by these two drafts warrants attention.
I am not ye
I support the WG adoption of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy/ .
(I also support WG adoption of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection )
I believe the problem space addressed by these two drafts warrants attention.
I am not yet over
Designated Experts I wanted to share my concerns sooner rather than
later.
A few more responses inline.
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2020 5:13 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy.auth...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Comments
something attempting to address a similar problem. It isn’t easy.
Les
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2020 1:41 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy.auth...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Comments on Requested Codepoints for
(NOTE: Comments below are mine alone - wearing both my WG member hat and my
Designated Expert for IS-IS Registries Hat. They do not represent support for
or against the draft itself.)
draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-06 currently proposes the use of one new sub-TLV
of Router Capabilities TLV and
Alvaro -
I will publish an update once we have converged on all your comments.
Responses inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Alvaro Retana
> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 1:05 PM
> To: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-...@ietf.org
> Cc: Christian Hopps ; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr@iet
John -
Yes - I like "Application-Specific" better. This matches the term we use
throughout the documents.
Thanx.
Les
From: John E Drake
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 1:37 PM
To: Yingzhen Qu ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A ;
The IES
11:29 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; BRUNGARD,
DEBORAH A ; The IESG
Cc: lsr-cha...@ietf.org; aretana.i...@gmail.com; Acee Lindem (acee)
; draft-ietf-isis-te-...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Deborah Brungard's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-te-app-14:
(with DISCUSS and COMMENT
: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 1:07 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; The IESG
Cc: draft-ietf-isis-te-...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; Acee
Lindem (acee) ; aretana.i...@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Deborah Brungard's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-te-app-14: (with
DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Les-
To sho
draft-ietf-isis-te-app-17 has been posted with this change.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott O. Bradner
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 8:53 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; Peter Psenak
> ; Benjamin Kaduk
> ; lsr@ietf.org; o
gt; Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 5:09 AM
> To: Peter Psenak ; Les Ginsberg
> (ginsberg)
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse@ietf.org; ops-
> d...@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org; Scott O. Bradner
> Subject: RE: [Last-Call] Opsdir telechat review of
> dra
Ben -
Inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Benjamin Kaduk
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 7:22 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: Scott Bradner ; ops-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-te-
> link-attr-reuse@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org
> Subject
; From: Benjamin Kaduk
> Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2020 12:03 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: The IESG ; draft-ietf-isis-te-...@ietf.org; lsr-
> cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; Acee Lindem (acee) ;
> aretana.i...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on dra
t; reuse-14
>
> inline
>
> > On Jun 14, 2020, at 6:50 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> wrote:
> >
> > Scott -
> >
> >
> >
> > Inline.
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-
> >
> > > From: Scott O. Brad
Scott -
Inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott O. Bradner
> Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2020 3:16 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: ops-...@ietf.org; Benjamin Kaduk ; draft-ietf-ospf-te-
> link-attr-reuse@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org
&g
Scott -
Allow me to inject myself here. As editor of the companion IS-IS document
(draft-ietf-isis-te-app) I have received similar comments - for example from
Ben (copied on this thread).
I continue to be at a loss as to why you believe we have to say something about
User Defined Applications
Deborah –
Inline.
From: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 4:16 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; The IESG
Cc: draft-ietf-isis-te-...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; Acee
Lindem (acee) ; aretana.i...@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Deborah Brungard's Discuss on draft-ietf
Ben -
Inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Benjamin Kaduk
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 9:15 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: The IESG ; draft-ietf-isis-te-...@ietf.org; lsr-
> cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; Acee Lindem (acee) ;
> aretana.i...@gmail.com
&g
bits remaining, to allow for compact encoding. It's
not actually necessary to be strictly sequential in order to minimize the
number of octets transmitted."
LES: I understand this concern. How about if we change policy to "Expert
Review"?
Les
> -Original Messa
Ben -
Sorry - there was a typo - correct specification number is ISO 10589.
It is freely available here:
https://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/index.html
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Benjamin Kaduk
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 1:01 PM
> To:
or Section 7.5 there really isn’t anything else to say beyond what RFC 7370
says.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 11:05 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Martin Duke ; Rob Wilton
> (rwilto
Folks -
This update to the draft addresses comments from the following IESG reviewers:
Murray Kucherawy
Martin Duke
Rob Wilton
Roman Danyliw
Deborah Brungard
Benjamin Kaduk
It also includes grammatical corrections related to the use of "which/that".
A special thank you to Acee Lindem for his ti
Benjamin -
Thanx for your review.
Responses inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 12:42 AM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: draft-ietf-isis-te-...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; Acee
> Lindem (acee) ; aretana.i...
Deborah -
Thanx for your review.
Responses inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Deborah Brungard via Datatracker
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 3:17 PM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: draft-ietf-isis-te-...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; Acee
> Lindem (acee) ; aretana.i..
Roman -
Thanx for the review.
Responses inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 3:05 PM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: draft-ietf-isis-te-...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; Acee
> Lindem (acee) ; aretana.i...@gmai
Rob -
Thanx for your review.
Inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 8:38 AM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: draft-ietf-isis-te-...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; Acee
> Lindem (acee) ; aretana.i...@gmail.com; Acee Lindem
>
Martin -
From: Martin Duke
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2020 2:35 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: The IESG ; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; aretana.i...@gmail.com; Acee
Lindem (acee) ; draft-ietf-isis-te-...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-te-a
Martin -
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Duke
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2020 9:02 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: The IESG ; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; aretana.i...@gmail.com;
> Acee Lindem (acee) ; draft-ietf-isis-te-...@ietf.org;
> lsr@ietf.org
> Subject:
Martin -
Thanx for your review.
A new version will be published soon - pending resolution of comments from
another review - that addresses issues you have raised - subject to my
responses inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Martin Duke via Datatracker
> Sent: Monday,
501 - 600 of 916 matches
Mail list logo
