Also isn't MD5 / TCP-AO or security certificates common across multiple routing components ?
You have IPX address family and you do not have RIP one which was way more common over PE-CE then IPX :) ? I see bunch of labels but quite useful context label as defined in RFC5331 is not really there. And frankly I think we could just go on and on providing missing examples from various common to routing areas. Thanks, R. On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > I’m a co-author on some of these geo-location drafts but they are not yet > WG documents. However, we did get a lot of people involved in the > definitions and feel they are stable. I would not be opposed to adding them > at the risk they could change after publication. > > Thanks, > Acee > > From: <[email protected]> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 5:18 PM > > To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]> > Cc: Jeff Haas <[email protected]>, Routing WG <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-06.txt > > > In addition to already discussed typedefs how about unified GPS > coordinates which is common across number of working groups for starter ? > > Have Routing Design Team considered it ? > > Best, > RR. > > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Robert, >> >> Feel free to suggest validated common YANG typedefs for consideration by >> the Routing Design Team…. I’m not worried about adding needed types for a >> few more weeks. It is the few more quarters that I’m worried about. This is >> also consistent with the direction we are receiving from the ADs. >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> From: <[email protected]> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> >> Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 5:06 PM >> To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]> >> Cc: Jeff Haas <[email protected]>, Routing WG <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-06.txt >> >> Hi Acee, >> >> Progressing it quickly and incomplete will result in each independent >> routing model coming with their own likely creating pretty massive >> conflicts and confusion. >> >> So IMHO we should really make sure all necessary and common between >> different protocols elements are defined here even if as result it would >> get delayed few more weeks. >> >> Cheers, >> R, >> >> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Jeff, Robert, >>> >>> We weren’t sure that SOO would be used beyond the BGP model. I can add >>> typedef site-of-origin with format <4-octet-asn:2-octet-number>. >>> >>> As far as RFC 5701 is concerned, we could add types ipv6-route-target and >>> ipv6-site-of-origin with format <ipv6-address:2-octet-number>. >>> >>> Note that the intent is to progress this quickly so that usage doesn’t >>> block other models. It is not to get every present and future common >>> routing type that might be useful prior to progression. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Acee >>> >>> >>> On 6/20/17, 3:43 PM, "rtgwg on behalf of Jeffrey Haas" >>> <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >Robert, >>> > >>> >On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 09:25:51PM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote: >>> >> Let's note that I had similar concerns on RT definition and more >>> >>expressed >>> >> to the list in Nov 2016 however they were not considered :(. >>> > >>> >I'm in my typical far behind on list mode, so I may have missed this. >>> :-) >>> > >>> >I agree the other structured formats are worth considering. >>> > >>> >A challenge the authors of the draft have is canonical formatting for >>> new >>> >structured formats while at the same time providing access to the >>> opaquely >>> >until they have been thus defined. >>> > >>> >I would urge the chairs to request attention from IDR and BESS as part >>> of >>> >the WGLC on this document. Sue Hares responded earlier in the thread, >>> so >>> >it >>> >at least has her attention. >>> > >>> >-- Jeff >>> > >>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> >> From: Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> >>> >> Date: Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:34 PM >>> >> Subject: Re: Draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-routing-types >>> >> To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> >>> >> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>> >> >>> >> Hi Acee, >>> >> >>> >> SOO has similar format to RT however RT is defined only partially. >>> >>There is >>> >> existing extension to RFC4360 in the form of RFC5668 which defines new >>> >> structure of both RT and SOO (Route Origin). >>> >> >>> >> Also I think there important this draft needs to define type for VRF >>> as >>> >>VRF >>> >> as such is used across a lot of different applications way beyond >>> >>original >>> >> L3VPN use intention. >>> >> >>> >> And I think there is many more common elements ... just think of >>> recent >>> >>geo >>> >> coordinates shred by 4 WGs (if not more ...). >>> >> >>> >> Thx, >>> >> R. >>> > >>> >_______________________________________________ >>> >rtgwg mailing list >>> >[email protected] >>> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
