[bess] ID Tracker State Update Notice:
IANA action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-orf-covering-prefixes/ ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
[bess] [IANA #812089] Protocol Action: 'Covering Prefixes Outbound Route Filter for BGP-4' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-bess-orf-covering-prefixes-06.txt)
Hi, It should definitely be pointing at version 06. Here are the corrected versions: http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities We'll replace the draft string when the RFC Editor notifies us that they've assigned a number. In the meantime, I'll let them know that the actions are complete. thanks, Amanda On Thu Mar 12 01:32:18 2015, rbon...@juniper.net wrote: > Hi Amanda, > > I have two questions. > > The latest version of draft-ietf-bess-orf-covering prefixes is 06. > Your reference is RFC-ietf-bess-orf-covering-prefixes-03. Does that > make a difference? > > Also, I assume that this string will be replaced with an RFC number > when one is assigned. Is that right? > > Otherwise, it looks OK. > > Ron > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Amanda Baber via RT [mailto:drafts-appro...@iana.org] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 6:32 PM > > Cc: draft-ietf-bess-orf-covering-prefixes@tools.ietf.org > > Subject: [IANA #812089] Protocol Action: 'Covering Prefixes Outbound > > Route > > Filter for BGP-4' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-bess-orf-covering- > > prefixes- > > 06.txt) > > > > Dear Authors: > > > > ATTENTION: A RESPONSE TO THIS MESSAGE IS NEEDED > > > > We've completed the IANA Actions for the following RFC-to-be: > > > > draft-ietf-bess-orf-covering-prefixes-06 > > > > ACTION 1: > > > > IANA has updated the reference for the following BGP Outbound Route > > Filtering (ORF) Type: > > > > 65CP-ORF [RFC-ietf-bess-orf-covering-prefixes-03] > > > > Please see > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters > > > > > > ACTION 2: > > > > IANA has updated the reference for the following Transitive Opaque > > Extended Community Sub-Type: > > > > 0x03 CP-ORF [RFC-ietf-bess-orf-covering-prefixes-03] > > > > Please see > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities > > > > > > Please let us know whether the above IANA Actions look OK. As soon as > > we > > receive your confirmation, we'll notify the RFC Editor that this > > document's > > IANA Actions are complete. (If this document has a team of authors, > > one > > reply on behalf of everyone will suffice.) > > > > We'll update the reference when the RFC Editor notifies us that > > they've > > assigned a number. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Amanda Baber > > IANA Request Specialist > > ICANN > ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
[bess] [IANA #812089] Protocol Action: 'Covering Prefixes Outbound Route Filter for BGP-4' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-bess-orf-covering-prefixes-06.txt)
Dear Authors: ATTENTION: A RESPONSE TO THIS MESSAGE IS NEEDED We've completed the IANA Actions for the following RFC-to-be: draft-ietf-bess-orf-covering-prefixes-06 ACTION 1: IANA has updated the reference for the following BGP Outbound Route Filtering (ORF) Type: 65 CP-ORF [RFC-ietf-bess-orf-covering-prefixes-03] Please see http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters ACTION 2: IANA has updated the reference for the following Transitive Opaque Extended Community Sub-Type: 0x03CP-ORF [RFC-ietf-bess-orf-covering-prefixes-03] Please see http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities Please let us know whether the above IANA Actions look OK. As soon as we receive your confirmation, we'll notify the RFC Editor that this document's IANA Actions are complete. (If this document has a team of authors, one reply on behalf of everyone will suffice.) We'll update the reference when the RFC Editor notifies us that they've assigned a number. Thanks, Amanda Baber IANA Request Specialist ICANN ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
Re: [bess] [IANA #812089] Protocol Action: 'Covering Prefixes Outbound Route Filter for BGP-4' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-bess-orf-covering-prefixes-06.txt)
Hi Amanda, I have two questions. The latest version of draft-ietf-bess-orf-covering prefixes is 06. Your reference is RFC-ietf-bess-orf-covering-prefixes-03. Does that make a difference? Also, I assume that this string will be replaced with an RFC number when one is assigned. Is that right? Otherwise, it looks OK. Ron > -Original Message- > From: Amanda Baber via RT [mailto:drafts-appro...@iana.org] > Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 6:32 PM > Cc: draft-ietf-bess-orf-covering-prefixes@tools.ietf.org > Subject: [IANA #812089] Protocol Action: 'Covering Prefixes Outbound Route > Filter for BGP-4' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-bess-orf-covering-prefixes- > 06.txt) > > Dear Authors: > > ATTENTION: A RESPONSE TO THIS MESSAGE IS NEEDED > > We've completed the IANA Actions for the following RFC-to-be: > > draft-ietf-bess-orf-covering-prefixes-06 > > ACTION 1: > > IANA has updated the reference for the following BGP Outbound Route > Filtering (ORF) Type: > > 65CP-ORF [RFC-ietf-bess-orf-covering-prefixes-03] > > Please see > http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters > > > ACTION 2: > > IANA has updated the reference for the following Transitive Opaque > Extended Community Sub-Type: > > 0x03 CP-ORF [RFC-ietf-bess-orf-covering-prefixes-03] > > Please see > http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities > > > Please let us know whether the above IANA Actions look OK. As soon as we > receive your confirmation, we'll notify the RFC Editor that this document's > IANA Actions are complete. (If this document has a team of authors, one > reply on behalf of everyone will suffice.) > > We'll update the reference when the RFC Editor notifies us that they've > assigned a number. > > Thanks, > > Amanda Baber > IANA Request Specialist > ICANN ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
[bess] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-03.txt
Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-03.txt Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins Review Date: 11th March 2015 IETF LC End Date: Not known Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication. Comments: The draft is well written, in places I needed to re-read sentences to ensure I had understood them but I think this is more to do with the nature of the content and that multicast VPNs require complex descriptions rather than a reflection on the quality of the document. Major issues: No major issues found. Minor issues: No minor issues found. Nits: Section 1.1: C-multicast flow: Change If a customer uses the "Any Source Multicast" (ASM) model, the some or all of the customer's C-flows may be traveling along the to If a customer uses the "Any Source Multicast" (ASM) model, then some or all of the customer's C-flows may be traveling along the i.e. s/the/then in the first line. Section 1.2.4: s/If a bidirectional P-tunnels/If bidirectional P-tunnels/ s/The method used by a given VRF used is determined/The method used by a given VRF is determined/ Section 3.2.2: s/The PEs are REQUIRED to originate these routes are/The PEs REQUIRED to originate these routes are/ s/This document assumes that the root node address of an MP2MP LSP an IP address/This document assumes that the root node address of an MP2MP LSP is an IP address/ Section 3.2.4 states: In order to be compliant with this specification, an implementation that provides bidirectional P-tunnels MUST support one or both of the two P-tunnel technologies mentioned in section Section 1.2.1. Saying implementations "MUST support one or both" sounds a bit strange to me and something like "MUST support at least one" sounds better (but both ultimately mean the same thing)? Also the document states: A PE that does not provide C-BIDIR support using the "partitioned set of PEs" method may be deemed compliant to this specification if it supports the Unpartitioned Method, using either MP2MP LSPs or BIDIR- PIM multicast distribute trees as P-tunnels. "may be deemed" implies there are cases where it "may not be deemed" compliant but I'm not sure what those are. Do you really mean to say "is" instead of "may be"? Regards Ben ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
[bess] ID Tracker State Update Notice:
IANA action state changed to In Progress ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-orf-covering-prefixes/ ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
[bess] ID Tracker State Update Notice:
IANA action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-orf-covering-prefixes/ ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
