Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-acee-lsr-ospf-transport-instance-02

Yes/support. Regards, - Xufeng On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 4:47 AM Christian Hopps wrote: > > This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft: > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-lsr-ospf-transport-instance/ > > Please indicate your support or objection by May 16th, 2021.

Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1-03

Support adoption. Thanks, - Xufeng On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:20 AM Christian Hopps wrote: > This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft: > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1/ > > Please indicate your support or objection by January

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "IS-IS Topology-Transparent Zone" - draft-chen-isis-ttz-11.txt

Support WG adoption. Thanks, - Xufeng On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:17 AM Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > > Based on the discussions in the last meeting and on the mailing list > regarding draft-chen-isis-ttz-11, the chairs feel that there are enough > differences with

Re: [Lsr] Flooding Topology Computation Algorithm - draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-08 Working Group Adoption Call

Support as a co-author. Thanks, - Xufeng On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 3:40 PM Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > This begins a 3 week (due to holidays) WG adoption call for the “Flooding > Topology Computation Algorithm” draft. Please issue your support or > objection to this list by 11:59 PM, UTC on June

Re: [Lsr] Flooding Topology Computation Algorithm - draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-08 IPR Poll

I am not aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed. Thanks, - Xufeng On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:32 AM Aijun Wang wrote: > Hi, Acee: > > > > I am not aware of any IPR that applies to > draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-08.txt. > > > > > > Best Regards. > > > > Aijun Wang > > China Telecom

[Lsr] A question on the parameter overriding in draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg

In Section 2.3. and many other locations, the current IS-IS model applies the parameter overriding rule as below: [Quote]: 2.3 . Per-Level Parameters Some parameters allow a per level configuration. In this case,

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=link> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 7:35 AM tom petch wrote: > - Original Message ----- > From: "Xufeng Liu" > Sent: Wednesday, De

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

MAY be achieved by a mechanism such as Section 6.2 of [RFC6827]. Or, would you give a suggestion? Thanks, - Xufeng On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 12:14 PM tom petch wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Xufeng Liu" > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ospf-yang > > > Hi Ace

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

Hi Acee, Tom, and All, Several authors of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types had a brief discussion on this topic. Our take on the te-node-id and te-router-id is: - In TEAS, the te-node-id specified in draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types has a wider use scope than IP MPLS TE. The system may or may not run