Hi authors,
At the request of Giuseppe, I had a read on draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00.
There are IPFIX IEs ingressInterface, egressInterface, ingressPhysicalInterface
and egressPhysicalInterface, is there an IE indicating a LAG interface?
Best Regards,
Xiao Min___
Dear Xiao,
I agree that the description and the additional information does not provide
information to distinguish between
ingressInterface, egressInterface
and
ingressPhysicalInterface, egressPhysicalInterface
However from an implementation perspective I have observed that in all cases
ingr
I support adoption of this work. It forms the foundation of work in other WGs,
and I’m happy to have this worked by netmod if there is sufficient interest.
As an opsawg co-chair, I’m copying opsawg to get their opinions. This work has
been presented there and is a dependency of an ACL draft cu
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls-11: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please
Hi all,
As indicated in IETF#119, we suggest to tag this issue as closed and proceed
with the publication of the current versions of the various I-Ds.
Cheers,
Med
De : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
Envoyé : vendredi 23 février 2024 15:55
À : 'Aitken, Paul' ; 'Joe Clarke (jclarke)'
; 'opsawg@ietf
As a co-chair, I’m willing to call consensus on this as there hasn’t been any
other replies on this thread after Med asserted the reasoning for sticking with
unsigned256.
I would ask Thomas as shepherd to note this in the write-up, and we can proceed
to IESG as I believe all other comments from
Reviewer: Christian Huitema
Review result: Ready
acceptable-urls-10-secdir-lc-huitema-2024-02-19/), I made a number of
recommendations.
One of the first recommendation was to clarify whether the distinction between
"small changes" and "big changes" was really necessary, and maybe to just keep
the
Sorry about that -- I botched the copy of my review into the web form.
The first paragraph should read:
In my initial security review of this draft
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls-10-secdir-lc-huitema-2024-02-19/),
I made a number of recommendations.
Hi Med,
Just one comment. See inline with [mj]
> On Apr 1, 2024, at 11:05 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
>
> Hi Gyan,
>
> Thank you for the review.
>
> The candidate revisions can be tracked here:
>
> *
> https://boucadair.github.io/attachment-circuit-model/#go.draft-ietf-opsawg-
Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls-11: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Pleas
Correcting the email address i...@ietf.org.
Hi Thomas,
If I understand you correctly, you mean the IE exporter can use
ingressInterface/egressInterface to indicate LAG port and
ingressPhysicalInterface/egressPhysicalInterface to indicate LAG member port,
so the receiver can deduce the implicit
Dear Xiao,
Correct. Obviously this will be exported per flow and the interface entities
have to be key fields as the flow entities as well.
Best wishes
Thomas
On 3 Apr 2024, at 04:54, xiao.m...@zte.com.cn wrote:
Be aware: This is an external email.
Correcting the email address i...@ietf.
12 matches
Mail list logo
