Hi Loa, et al, Since I commented on the MPLS-RT review with respect to the IDR-specific content, there may be some confusion as to where I stand on the ownership of this draft. I’ve reviewed this document and agree with the approach described below. I’m convinced we will get the right level cross-WG review along as we recognize that it does span multiple WGs. I would expect that we’ll have implementations conforming to the draft in the near future.
Thanks, Acee On 8/17/16, 1:36 PM, "mpls on behalf of Loa Andersson" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >Eric, et.al., (copied also idr-chairs and idr-list + bess-chairs and >bess-list) > >For those of you that are not subscribed to the mpls-list. > >- the mpls wg has started the initial steps for working group adoption, > there are three steps > -- mpls-rt review (what you see below is the follow-up discussion on > that review) > -- IPR poll, will be sent out soon > -- working group adoption poll (wgap), that poll will be copied to > the idr and bess. Hopefully we can that shortly. > >I'm sending this to mpls, idr and bess working group, since it has >to do where things should be documented. > > >On 2016-08-17 17:59, Eric C Rosen wrote: >> Hi Mach, >> >> Thanks for your review. >> >> On 8/3/2016 4:51 AM, Mach Chen wrote: >>> I have only one comment regarding to Section 5. IMHO, although it's >>> informational, the description about the relationship between SAFI-1 >>> and SAFI-4 routes should not belong to this document, it's a more >>> common description that is not specific to this label binding process. >>> I'd suggest to remove this section if there is no any other reasons. >> >> Differing interpretations about the relationship between SAFI-1 and >> SAFI-4 are a very common source of interoperability problems among >> implementations of different vendors. Thus I think it is very useful to >> document this issue and to call attention to some of the differing >> interpretations. I think this document is an appropriate place for this >> information; even though this information is not about label binding, it >> is about the semantics of SAFI-4. > >I agree that this needs to be documented! I can accept that it is done >in draft-rosen-mpls-rfc3107bis, but I would like to have all three wg's >agree to this. I see a few alternatives > >- we could document this is in draft-rosen-mpls-rfc3107bis; or >- we could write a separate document >- we could find another document where this has a better fit than in > draft-rosen-mpls-rfc3107bis >- any other suggestion > >Let us know if you have an opinion. > >Please send your responses to the mpls wg mailing list ([email protected]). > >/Loa >mpls wg-co-chair > >> >> Eric > >-- > > >Loa Andersson email: [email protected] >Senior MPLS Expert [email protected] >Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > >_______________________________________________ >mpls mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
