Re: [spring] New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-08.txt

Dear Greg, > 2020/02/26 午後5:38、Greg Mirsky のメール: > > Dear All, > please find my notes and questions in-lined tagged GIM>>. > > Regards, > Greg > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 12:58 PM Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) > wrote: Refreshing my cache -- since your rep

Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Robert, I did not read any “accusation” or “attack” in SM’s note, nor anything specifically directed at Bruno, the person, his decision-making, or his character — just a set of question to the AD on potential based on roles and processes. Thanks, — Carlos. PS: There are documents that codify

Re: [spring] New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-08.txt

Hello, SPRING chairs, Ditto Re- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/FzI1bFjYoFza4Ysu9DCOzcWme4I draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-08.txt seems to simply be an attempt to bypass previous reviews by shopping a new WG. Instead of responding to technically show-stopping comments, this text was remo

Re: [spring] Codepoint for OSPFv3 protocol in SPRING LSP-Ping and LSP-Trace

we go about it? Is this an addendum to the RFC? Mustapha. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 11, 2019, at 6:32 AM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: +1. We should have different codepoints for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. I recall we actually planned to do that not too long ago,

Re: [spring] Codepoint for OSPFv3 protocol in SPRING LSP-Ping and LSP-Trace

+1. We should have different codepoints for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. I recall we actually planned to do that not too long ago, but I cannot find the draft on which we split the codepoint. From: "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 2:31 AM To: "Ketan Talaulik

Re: [spring] New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-08.txt

[A very late reply to this email, but since no-one else replied… to add topic diversity to the list.] SPRING chairs, Sending this note only for completeness, and not as indication of interest or support of draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-08.txt. Since draft-mirsky-spring-bfd has no provenance metadata

Re: [spring] New Version Notification for draft-ali-spring-bfd-sr-policy-02.txt

2, 2018 at 6:19 PM To: "Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)" mailto:naiku...@cisco.com>>, "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" mailto:ket...@cisco.com>>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" mailto:z...@cisco.com>>, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" mailto:cpign...@cisco.co

Re: [spring] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-09

Dear Takeshi, We have applied the following changes to the document’s working copy, in response to your review. Thanks again. Section 1., paragraph 3: EXPLANATION: Spell out LDP. OLD: The system applies to monitoring of non Segment Routing Label | Switched Paths (LSP's) like LDP as well

Re: [spring] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-09

Many thanks Takeshi for your review! We will fix the minor and editorial comments. Thanks! — Carlos Pignataro, car...@cisco.com “Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound more photosynthesis." On Dec 12, 2017, at 2:52 AM, Takeshi T

Re: [spring] [mpls] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-03.txt

Dear Greg, Since there had been no responses to the few emails you had sent to the three lists (MPLS, SPRING, RTG-BFD) about various versions of this draft, here’s some high-level thoughts. I hope these are clear and useful. In this email you mention BFD as the Target WG, the document file name

Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

perational needs closer to trace route than to mid-point strict accounting. The sentence you quote above is in the context of this. Best, — Carlos. Regards, Greg On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: [Sorry for jumping late t

Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

Actually, draft-ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement should fade away and not progress. Please see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/x8f_1aM4WsPlWzuqsPmL53wF_m4 Martin, can you please update the datatracker state to reflect this, as per your email above? As it relates to this thread:

Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

[Sorry for jumping late to this thread! A couple of quick observations.] On Nov 21, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Robert Raszuk mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> wrote: . I clearly see folks thinking of SR-MPLS like a RSVP-TE analogy with EROs [and] On Nov 16, 2017, at 5:48 AM, stephane.litkow...@orange.com

Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

Hi, Sasha, Just like Rüdiger stated, “SR OAM Use Case” describes a centralized system that is topology-aware to perform data plane monitoring and measurement (including delay measurement between arbitrary points). “End-to-end liveness monitoring and measurements”, as you write, is not the corr

Re: [spring] Working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping

Thank you Loa. New revision addressing all comments, posted. Thanks! — Carlos. On Aug 2, 2017, at 3:40 AM, Loa Andersson mailto:l...@pi.nu>> wrote: Working Groups, This working group last call has been closed. There have been comments, can the authors/editors please update as necessary and po

Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-06

behalf of Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" mailto:cpign...@gmail.com> on behalf of cpign...@cisco.com<mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: ### P2. “BFD or LSP Ping format”…references? [ED] Next draft version. [ED] Good point as well. In addition to adding the references

Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-06

D; no need to mention all. I'll leave this document waiting for the Architecture so we can progress them together. Please update the references when you get a chance, no hurry. Thanks! Alvaro. On 7/1/17, 4:34 PM, "Carlos Pignataro on behalf of Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" mai

Re: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-06

Hi, Pete, Many thanks for the time to read and review this document! Like Ruediger, I will let the shepherd, chairs, and AD weight in — but in the meantime, I wanted to offer a couple of observations for consideration. Please see inline. > On Jun 28, 2017, at 2:31 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: >

Re: [spring] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-06

There are two uses of pre-SR stil in the document. Otherwise, yes, these address my comments. Yours, Joel On 7/1/17 4:52 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote: Thanks for your review, Joel! Revision -07, just submitted, should address all your concerns and suggestions. Please let us know oth

Re: [spring] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-06

Hi, Joel, Many thanks for your review! Please see inline. > On Jun 30, 2017, at 10:13 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > > Reviewer: Joel Jaeggli > Review result: Has Nits > > I have reviewed > > draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-06 as par of the OPS directorate review cycle > forIETF last call. > > In g

Re: [spring] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-06

Thanks for your review, Joel! Revision -07, just submitted, should address all your concerns and suggestions. Please let us know otherwise. Thanks, — Carlos. On Jun 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Joel Halpern mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>> wrote: Reviewer: Joel Halpern Review result: Has Nits This is

Re: [spring] IPR poll on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping

Loa, I am not aware of any IPR that applies to the subject matter in draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping. Thanks, — Carlos. > On Jun 5, 2017, at 3:39 AM, Loa Andersson wrote: > > Working Group, authors, > > We have started to prepare the the draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping for > wglc, prior to

Re: [spring] Requirements towards OAM in Segment Routing network

Hi, I do not believe SPRING should work on draft-ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement. It makes more sense to focus on solutions than these weak and sparse requirements for very diverse set of potential protocols (LSP Ping, BFD, S-BFD, SRv6 OAMs, etc). Thanks, — Carlos. On May 16, 2017, at 4:18 AM

Re: [spring] [mpls] New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00.txt

y FECs are being defined at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-02 Hope that helps, — Carlos. PS: As I find this repetitive, this is my last email on the subject. > Regards, > Greg > > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) > wrote:

Re: [spring] [mpls] New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00.txt

mpls-bfd-directed :) Google also seems to be pretty clueless about it. Just curious as you keep using this term in each email :) Thx, R. On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: Greg, In the MPLS data plane, FECs are also instantiated thr

Re: [spring] [mpls] New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00.txt

7110. I viewed the proposal as invitation to technical discussion. Regards, Greg On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: Thank you Greg! Since https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00 seems quite similar to the te

Re: [spring] [mpls] New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00.txt

mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Carlos, I've decided to re-start the discussion and am interested to hear technical comments to the proposed solution. Regards, Greg On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote: Dear Greg, C

Re: [spring] [mpls] New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00.txt

Dear Greg, Cursorily scanning through this, it seems that most concerns raised and comments made about the SR sections of draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-0N (with N < 5) apply to your new draft. This is one of those: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg15860.html — the list arc

[spring] Fwd: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-01.txt

Hi, This update plugs-in the early-allocation values from IANA. Thanks, — Carlos. Begin forwarded message: From: internet-dra...@ietf.org Subject: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-01.txt Date: October 31, 2016 at 12:16:04 PM EDT To: mailto:i-d

Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase

Dear Bruno, Closing the loop on this WGLC, we just submitted a new revision of this draft addressing all received WGLC comments. Thanks, — Carlos. > On Oct 1, 2016, at 11:01 AM, Faisal Iqbal (faiqbal) wrote: > > Thank you Ruediger for your quick response. I agree with your suggestions and >

Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase

Thanks again, Faisal, for taking time to review and comment! All very useful. We will spin a new rev addressing them. Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro. Excuze typofraphicak errows > On Oct 1, 2016, at 11:02, Faisal Iqbal (faiqbal) wrote: > > Thank you Ruediger for your quick response. I agree

Re: [spring] IPR for draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase prior to WGLC

Hi, The datatracker shows two IPR disclosures against this document, with IDs 2314 and 2406. I am not aware of any additional and undisclosed IPR directly applicable to this I-D. Thanks! Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro. Excuze typofraphicak errows > On Jul 24, 2016, at 13:47, John G.Scudde

Re: [spring] [mpls] Clarification on the motivation of draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip-05

> On Apr 7, 2016, at 6:39 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote: > > On 4/6/2016 11:37 AM, Xuxiaohu wrote: >> The situation in MPLS-SR is a little bit complex since the outgoing label >> for a given /32 or /128 prefix FEC could be learnt either from the IGP >> next-hop of that FEC or the originator of that FEC d

Re: [spring] working group adoption call for draft-geib-spring-oam-usecase

Roberta, > On Aug 6, 2015, at 06:03, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) > wrote: > > Thank you, Roberta! > > Please see inline. > >> On Jul 22, 2015, at 11:55 PM, Roberta Maglione (robmgl) >> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> I read the document and I

Re: [spring] working group adoption call for draft-geib-spring-oam-usecase

Thank you, Roberta! Please see inline. > On Jul 22, 2015, at 11:55 PM, Roberta Maglione (robmgl) > wrote: > > Hello, > I read the document and I support its adoption as WG item. > I have just few editorial comments: > - I would suggest adding a terminology section to list new acronyms (like >

Re: [spring] working group adoption call for draft-geib-spring-oam-usecase

Hi, I support adoption of draft-geib-spring-oam-usecase, as a co-author. I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR relevant to this document. Thanks, — Carlos. > On Jul 22, 2015, at 3:13 PM, John G. Scudder wrote: > > Dear WG, > > As we discussed at our meeting yesterday, working group adoption

Re: [spring] Poll for adoption: draft-kumar-spring-sr-oam-requirement

Hi, As a co-author, I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this document. I support adoption of this document. It targets chartered work and a spring milestone. It provides a solid basis for Spring OAM (as co-author). Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro. Excuze typofraphicak errows On Jun 10, 201