(Copying Mirja as well since one portion of my reply relates to her comment)
Warren -
Inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Warren Kumari
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 3:10 PM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810...@ietf.org; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
> ; aretana.i...
This version addresses review comments from Alissa and Alexey.
Thanx.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 7:51 AM
> To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-
I am not aware of any IPR applies to draft-shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext.
Les
From: Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 5:48 AM
To: draft-shen-isis-spine-leaf-...@ietf.org
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: IPR Poll for "IS-IS Routing for Spine-Leaf Topology" -
draft-shen-isis-spine-leaf-e
This version addresses Routing Directorate review comments from Manav (thanx!!).
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 5:23 PM
> To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ie
This update addresses editorial issues pointed out by Bruno and Ruediger (thanx
guys).
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 11:03 AM
> To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: [Lsr] I-D Action:
to take
the measurements – nor has anyone expressed concern as to any omissions in the
parameters advertised. Therefore we have no reason to alter the existing text
in these areas.
Responses inline.
From: Yoshifumi Nishida
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2018 1:31 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg
any time to raise questions
about RFC7810/RFC7471 and the WG can decide whether it agrees that changes are
needed. But that is not within the scope of this work.
Les
From: Alvaro Retana
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2018 9:55 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Acee Lindem (acee)
; Christian
: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 6:41 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: nish...@wide.ad.jp; tsv-...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; IETF list
; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03
Hi, Les,
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 6:52 PM
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 bis draft and the RFC it is modifying (RFC 7810).
While your questions in isolation
(Resending w/o the ID announce list - please post any replies against this
email please)
Folks -
Authors of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc
Folks -
Authors of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions/
received private comments that the spe
) ; Tony Li ; Les
Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv-01.txt
A new version of I-D, draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Les Ginsberg and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft-ginsberg
Alvaro –
Comments inline.
From: Alvaro Retana
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 2:38 PM
To: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810...@ietf.org
Cc: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; lsr@ietf.org;
lsr-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-02
Dear authors:
Thanks for taking on th
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03 has been
published. This addresses the inconsistency with RFC7471.
Les
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 2:46 PM
To: Alvaro Retana ; John Scudder ;
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810...@ietf.org
Cc: Hares
Alvaro –
As lead author on rfc7810bis I am happy to modify the language to be consistent
with RFC7471. That seems like the far easier pathway so long as we have your
assurance (which it seems we do) that this will not unduly delay progress of
rfc7810bis.
I do find that the fact that you raised
is not sufficient.
Hope this is clear.
Les
From: Aijun Wang
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 10:41 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ;
stephane.litkow...@orange.com; lsr@ietf.org
Cc: spr...@ietf.org
Subject: 答复: [spring] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc & draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc
Hi, Les
Obviously as co-author I support this.
This modest extension makes IS-IS GR usable for platforms which cannot reload
within the normal adjacency hold-time. It also allows the helping neighbors to
be aware that they have a restarting neighbor in case topology changes occur
which would compromise
Stephane -
The use case for this proposal is to support inter-AS scenarios in the absence
of a controller.
If the WG agrees that this use case needs to be addressed I believe the
proposal below is a good and viable compromise.
I say "compromise" because - as you mention below - ELC/ELRD are fun
T.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Acee Lindem (acee)
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 4:49 AM
> To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> ; Toerless Eckert ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR: Using DSCP for path/topology selection Q
>
> Hi Jie,
&
Toerless -
It's pretty hard to understand the context for your email.
What leads you to believe that any of the MT specifications you mention say
anything normative about DSCP and topologies??
RFC4915 does not mention DSCP at all - but does make the statement:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc49
Support.
Les
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 2:11 PM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability
support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00
At the LSR WG meeti
I am not aware of any relevant IPR.
Les
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 11:08 AM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Cc: m...@mshand.org.uk
Subject: [Lsr] IPR Call for draft for "Restart Signaling for IS-IS" -
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5306bis
Les, Paul, Mike,
In pre
would however like us to agree that the subject of this thread is
inappropriate. :-)
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony Li On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 9:14 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: Henk Smit ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subje
--Original Message-
> From: Tony Li On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 7:40 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: Henk Smit ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Teasing us with secrets
>
>
> Les,
>
> > I am not "teasing".
> &g
Russ -
Thanx for the review.
Responses inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: 7ri...@gmail.com <7ri...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2018 7:51 AM
> To: rtg-...@ietf.org
> Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org;
> lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Rt
ifferent links
in a densely meshed network.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony Li On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 6:59 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: Henk Smit ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Teasing us with secrets
>
>
TCP is not immune to this The fact that no IS-IS code is required to
recover from this when TCP is used does not mean that retransmissions come for
free.
There is no free lunch.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Henk Smit
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 2:22 PM
> To
Henk -
Thanx for the thoughtful response.
I'll do my best to respond in kind.
Inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Henk Smit
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 5:26 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: tony...@tony.li; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] IS-IS
/ .
Please do not confuse the two.
Les
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 12:39 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: hhws...@xs4all.nl; Tony Li ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] IS-IS over TCP
Hi Les,
> There are existing and successful deployments of an instance w
Henk/Gunter -
Couple of points.
1)IS-IS PDUs are sent directly over layer 2 - whereas TCP (or other transport)
are sent over Layer3.
This means we have a potential fate sharing issue where IIHs (which continue to
be sent over Layer 2 in your proposal (as I understand it) may be successfully
ex
Having now read the draft in its entirety...
As per the discussion in the WG meeting today...
I agree that MT and its relationship to address-families can be confusing.
I also agree that when deploying multiple address-family support the decision
to use/not-use MT can be confusing.
I also agree
Acee -
> > Section 3.2
> >
> > "When a router receives multiple overlapping ranges, it MUST
> >conform to the procedures defined in
> >[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]."
> >
> > It would be useful to include a section pointer here. I think your
>
Support.
It is a straighforward solution to the problem.
Les
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 3:25 PM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family Traffic Engineering
Tunnels - draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-04.txt
This begins an L
to cause interoperability
issues.
Comments are most welcome.
Les
-Original Message-
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2018 11:46 AM
To: Paul Wells (pauwells) ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv
Just updating Jeff's affiliation.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 11:06 PM
> To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-19.txt
>
>
> A New
Bruno/Julien/Benjamin –
V18 of the draft has been published. I believe this addresses all outstanding
comments.
Thanx very much for your input.
Les
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2018 12:56 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Acee Lindem (acee)
Cc: Routing
Decraene
Cc: Routing Directorate ;
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-...@ietf.org; rtg-...@ietf.org; Alvaro Retana
; lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura
; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; MEURIC
Julien IMT/OLN
Subject: Re: [Lsr] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review:
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-15
Hi Bruno,
On Oct 3
Bruno –
Trimming the thread…
[Les2:] Label imposition is meant to cover both the SWAP operation and the PUSH
operation. In the example you provided above where a label stack of “12” is
replaced by a label stack of “14,15” the number of labels “imposed” is 2.
[Bruno2] In that case, I definitely
Thanx Acee.
Renamed document has been uploaded and is awaiting WG chair approval for
posting.
Les
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2018 7:04 PM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Restart Signaling for IS-IS" -
draft-ginsberg-
Bruno –
Inline.
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 1:02 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Alvaro Retana
; MEURIC Julien IMT/OLN
Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; rtg-...@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review
Alvaro –
Thanx for helping drive this to closure.
Please see inline.
From: Alvaro Retana
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 10:54 AM
To: Julien Meuric ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-...@ietf.org;
rtg-...@ietf.org; rtg-...@ietf.org
Subject: Re
Julien -
Snipping out the resolved bits.
> -Original Message-
> From: Julien Meuric
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 3:27 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; rtg-...@ietf.org
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org; rtg-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-
> m...@i
IANA
section as is.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Benjamin Kaduk
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 6:21 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: David Waltermire ; sec...@ietf.org;
> lsr@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd@ietf
nical documentation should reside in
other parts of the document…”
I think what you propose is not consistent with the intent of the IANA section.
Thanx.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Benjamin Kaduk
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 4:06 PM
> To: Les G
Benjamin -
Responses nline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Benjamin Kaduk
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 2:11 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: David Waltermire ; sec...@ietf.org;
> lsr@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd@ietf
Benjamin -
Responses inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Benjamin Kaduk
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 2:46 PM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-...@ietf.org; Christian Hopps
> ; aretana.i...@gmail.com; lsr-cha...@ietf.org;
> cho...@chopps.org; lsr@ietf.org
>
David -
Thanx for the review.
A new version of the draft (17) has been published to address your comments -
subject to my responses below.
> -Original Message-
> From: David Waltermire
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 12:14 PM
> To: sec...@ietf.org
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org;
Julien -
Thanx for the additional comments.
V17 has been published to address these - subject to my responses below.
See Les2
> -Original Message-
> From: rtg-dir On Behalf Of Julien Meuric
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 8:12 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; rtg-...@i
Warren -
Thanx for the review, your kind words, and your sense of humor.
I have published V16 of the draft which addresses your comments except as noted
below.
> -Original Message-
> From: Warren Kumari
> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2018 4:52 PM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: draft-ietf-isis
Julien -
Thanx for your detailed review - and your patience in waiting for a response (I
returned from vacation only a few days ago).
I have published V16 of the draft which addresses your comments except as noted
inline below.
> -Original Message-
> From: Julien Meuric
> Sent: Monda
This new version addresses recently reported Errata RFC7810 (5486).
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org
> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2018 6:33 AM
> To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc
Alvaro –
I have posted V15 addressing your comments.
Inline.
From: Alvaro Retana
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 9:56 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ;
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-...@ietf.org
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Christian Hopps ; lsr-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: AD Review of draft-ietf
Alvaro –
I have posted V15 addressing your comments.
Responses inline.
From: Alvaro Retana
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 9:54 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ;
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-...@ietf.org
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Christian Hopps ; lsr-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: AD Review of draft
Huaimo -
> draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-02 supports operations on three modes
> including distributed mode and centralized one.
>
[Les:] The "third mode" mentioned in your draft is "static" which was defined
many years ago in RFC 2973 (Mesh Groups).
More importantly I think it is dynamic sol
Building on what Tony L and Peter have already stated:
R1: Significant reduction in flooding overhead.
R2: Flooding reduction should not add significant delay to the flooding time
R3: Reliability of flooding MUST be maintained
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Pete
Works for me.
Thanx Jeff.
Les
From: Jeff Tantsura
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 1:21 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Tony Przygienda
Cc: Tony Li ; lsr@ietf.org; Acee Lindem (acee)
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward
Les,
Not going to repeat Tony P
.
Les
From: Tony Przygienda
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 11:59 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Jeff Tantsura ; Tony Li ;
lsr@ietf.org; Acee Lindem (acee)
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward
I do think it is a good idea in a sense to somehow outline WHAT
In the discussions which led to the creation of LSVR and RIFT WGs, considerable
interest was expressed in working on enhancements to existing Link State
protocols. You can peruse the dcrouting mailing list archives.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dcrouting/
It is rather befuddling to
This modest extension is required in order to allow neighbors of a restarting
router to more robustly support planned restarts. It brings IS-IS support
equivalent to what OSPF has had for many years.
As co-author, I obviously support WG adoption.
Les
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (
I am not aware of any relevant IPR applicable to this draft.
Les
From: Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 6:49 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Paul Wells (pauwells)
; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: WG Adoption IPR Poll for "Restart Signaling for IS-IS" -
draft-gin
Alvaro –
V14 of the draft has been posted addressing your comments – subject to my
responses previously sent.
Please let us know if this is sufficient or you still have concerns which need
to be addressed.
Les
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 3:52 PM
To
Alvaro –
A very thorough review – thanx.
Jeff has the pen – but I think he is on holiday at the moment – so there may be
a short delay as regards a new version.
I will confine myself to comments on the non-editorial issues.
Inline.
From: Alvaro Retana
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 1:53 PM
T
draft. I don't think there was any reason for this - probably just a cut and
paste error.
At this point I think you will need to file an Errata.
Sigh...
Les
From: Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2018 3:40 AM
To: b...@ietf.org; Les Ginsberg (gin
Bruno –
Inline.
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2018 10:01 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-mpls-...@ietf.org; 徐小虎(义先)
Subject: RE: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-05.txt
Les,
Please see inline [Bruno]
From: Les Ginsberg
Bruno –
I appreciate why you suggest per-prefix signaling for ELC, but I would prefer
that we not employ that model.
ELC is clearly a node capability – signaling it in per node scope is therefore
most appropriate. And it aligns with the SR model where we do not need to
depend on hop-by-hop sig
V1 has been posted with the additional text.
Hope this clears any issues with the shepherd's report.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 2:07 PM
> To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Acee Lindem (ac
an issue which they will have to consider.
If they think receive only is sufficient that's fine, but it is beyond what I
think the draft needs to say.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 11:29 AM
> To: Les Ginsber
Uma -
I share the concerns expressed by Ketan and Peter.
Although I will certainly consider the additional response you seem to have
hinted at in your reply to Peter, it seems to me that Section 6 of your draft
acknowledges that there is a scaling problem - and then references what seems
to be
(Changed the subject – was “RE: [Lsr] IETF 102 LSR Working Group Call for
Agenda Items”)
Zhibo –
Following up on Acee’s comment…he is (of course) quite correct that there
already is a per link MTU sub-TLV defined by RFC 7176 – it is sub-TLV 28
defined here:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/is
)
; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Clarence
Filsfils (cfilsfil)
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-03.txt
A new version of I-D, draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-03.txt
has been successfully submitted by Les Ginsberg and posted to the IETF
repository.
Name
FYI.
The new version of the draft includes an Appendix describing the changes
relative to RFC 5306.
Otherwise the content is unchanged from V0.
Les
-Original Message-
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 8:58 AM
To: Paul Wells (pauwells) ; Les Ginsberg
Uma –
Thank you.
I have posted a new version (17) with the previously provided changes.
Les
From: Uma Chunduri
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 9:21 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensi...@ietf.org;
lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org
WG chairs -
Can we consider WG last call completed? (It has been more than 3 weeks...)
Would really like to get this small but important correction published ASAP.
Thanx.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 8:29 AM
> To
Gunter -
I strongly support Option #2 and strongly support Ketan's recommendation that
an MSD sub-type be used to advertise ERLD.
This is the unified framework that the MSD advertisement has been designed to
support.
The following documents provide a unified definition of this mechanism:
https
I am not aware of any IPR (new, old, borrowed, or blue) related to this
document.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Hopps
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 6:38 AM
> To: lsr@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-...@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org; lsr-
> cha...@ietf.org
Uma –
Responses inline.
From: Uma Chunduri
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 11:09 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensi...@ietf.org;
lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-16 - Shepherd
rything enclosed in [] as a reference does not
mean the text requires revision.
Idnits also does not allow that a non-RFC document can be a normative reference
– but clearly ISO 10589 is a normative reference.
Thanx.
Les
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 10:00 PM
To:
I am not aware of any IPR other than what has already been disclosed.
Les
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Uma Chunduri
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 12:18 PM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] IPR Poll on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-16
(Shepherd write-up)
Dear All,
Are you aware of any I
@ietf.org; stef...@previdi.net; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
; jdr...@juniper.net
Subject: Gentle Reminder!!!Re: draft-ietf-isis-te-app: Clarification on
Application Identifier bits
Dear Authors,
Could you please help me with the query.
Please confirm about the new bit for SRv6-TE applications.
We are
Muthu –
I agree with the comments from all of the folks who have responded to you thus
far.
The RFC is specifying what the externally visible behavior needs to be in order
for the feature to be safely and usefully deployed – it is not specifying HOW
to implement that behavior.
But, let’s assum
-
> From: Sabrina Tanamal via RT
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 3:52 PM
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; draft-ietf-
> isis-segment-routing-extensi...@ietf.org; cho...@chopps.org;
> uma.chund...@huawei.com; Acee Lindem (acee)
> Subject: [IANA #1109980] Early Allocat
Support as co-author.
This is an important correction to publish in order to address a known
interoperability issue.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 8:29 AM
> To: lsr@ietf.org
> Cc: lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.o
+1 to what Acee has said – except for the co-author on RFC 8362 part. ☺
Les
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 9:41 AM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Working Group Last Call for "OSPFv3 Extensions for
Segment Routing" - draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-seg
Chris –
To be “absolutely clear”, I object to the sharing of the “protocol type” field
at any level.
We are not talking about “content”.
Les
From: Christian Hopps
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 10:08 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flex
AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flex Algo merge work, IS-IS and OSPF FAD sub-TLVs
On May 21, 2018, at 11:46 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> wrote:
I fail to see any difference from the IGP algorithm case, whi
Chris -
From: Christian Hopps
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 5:44 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flex Algo merge work, IS-IS and OSPF FAD sub-TLVs
On May 20, 2018, at 12:33 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>>
y, May 19, 2018 4:48 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flex Algo merge work, IS-IS and OSPF FAD sub-TLVs
>
>
>
> > On May 19, 2018, at 12:27 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> wrote:
>
> First, please underst
l Message-
> From: Christian Hopps
> Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2018 6:15 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flex Algo merge work, IS-IS and OSPF FAD sub-TLVs
>
> Hi Les,
>
> It feels like your response is perhaps
(I never saw Chris's original email either - perhaps it was sent during the
period when delivery to the alias when compromised.)
I am in full agreement w Acee - it is a VERY BAD idea to try to combine
protocol TLV registries.
There are many reasons for this - here are a few.
1)In IS-IS the scop
age-
> From: Christian Hopps
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 3:09 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: Christian Hopps ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-11.txt
>
>
> Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) writes:
>
> > Chris
Chris -
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 8:08 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Christian Hopps
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-11.txt
>
>
Chris -
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Hopps
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 1:54 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-11.txt
>
>
> Hi Les,
>
> I was
I support WG last call.
This document is now mature – and fully aligned with
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd which has already passed last call.
Les
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:20 AM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call
This is a minor editorial revision to make the draft consistent w
draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-12.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:49 PM
> To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: [Lsr]
This version contains corrections/clarifications to the IANA section which were
identified during the recent early allocation of codepoints process.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 2:46 PM
> To: i-d-annou...@
Acee –
Thanx.
New version has been submitted – pending WG chair approval to be posted.
Les
From: Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 12:17 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: LSR WG Adoption call for "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Exten
WG chairs –
It has been more than 2 weeks since adoption call was initiated and support has
been expressed on the list – w no objections.
Can we consider WG adoption complete?
Can I issue a WG version of the draft?
Thanx.
Les
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Monday, April
Support as co-author.
Note that the substantive changes to the document were to remove the unused ERO
types - which was a widely supported change.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 7:03 AM
> To: lsr@ietf.org
> Cc: lsr-
Bravo!
Now LSR is a world class WG.
Thanx to Yingzhen for taking on this additional responsibility.
Les
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 6:43 AM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] LSR Working Group Secretary
All,
I’m delighted to announce that Yingzhen Q
Jie -
I strongly agree with Peter here.
It is "tempting" to think of algorithm/topology as interchangeable - but I
think it is wrong to do so.
It is true that some things achievable via flex-algo could be achieved using a
separate topology - but at a much higher deployment cost and with conside
801 - 900 of 916 matches
Mail list logo
