Re: [bess] Closed -- Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis
I have now posted draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-02.txt, which I believe addresses the LC comments. ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
[bess] WG Adoption request for draft-jain-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-04
Hi Martin and Thomas, We would like to request WG adoption for draft-jain-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-04 draft. The draft was presented in IETF-93 (Prague). We had received comments on the draft and they were incorporated in the current version of the draft. FYI, the draft is planned to be implemented. Thanks, Parag ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
Re: [bess] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
On 5/11/17 07:33, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: On 5/11/17, 1:19 AM, "Adam Roach" wrote: Adam: Hi! -- DISCUSS: -- Looking at the Shepherd write up and the Ballot, I see no mention of the normative reference to RFC 7348, which is informational and part of the Independent Submission stream. As I mention in my comments below, I can't fully follow the technical contents of this document, but this seems like a red flag to me and -- as far as I can tell -- it hasn't been discussed yet. It's possible that the reference just ended up in the wrong section (and should actually be informative), but it's not immediately obvious on a casual examination whether that's true. This document was originally scheduled for the Apr/27 Telechat, but as a result of Alia’s DISCUSS [1], the reference to rfc7348 was changed to Normative. The WG was cc’ed during the discussion, and I then reran the IETF LC with the downref explicitly mentioned [2]. I have no concerns about it. Yes, the Shepherd’s write-up should have been updated. Thanks for the clarification. I'm clearing my discuss. /a ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
Re: [bess] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
On 5/11/17, 1:19 AM, "Adam Roach" wrote: Adam: Hi! > -- > DISCUSS: > -- > > Looking at the Shepherd write up and the Ballot, I see no mention of the > normative reference to RFC 7348, which is informational and part of the > Independent Submission stream. As I mention in my comments below, I can't > fully follow the technical contents of this document, but this seems like > a red flag to me and -- as far as I can tell -- it hasn't been discussed > yet. It's possible that the reference just ended up in the wrong section > (and should actually be informative), but it's not immediately obvious on > a casual examination whether that's true. This document was originally scheduled for the Apr/27 Telechat, but as a result of Alia’s DISCUSS [1], the reference to rfc7348 was changed to Normative. The WG was cc’ed during the discussion, and I then reran the IETF LC with the downref explicitly mentioned [2]. I have no concerns about it. Yes, the Shepherd’s write-up should have been updated. > -- > COMMENT: > -- > > I strongly second Mirja's comment requesting positive confirmation from > the WG that is is collectively aware of the associated IPR > declarations. In my reply to Mirja [3] I pointd out that the WG was made aware of the IPR. Thanks! Alvaro. [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/Tj-xvbbZRxFegIeowE2bumBJoYU/?qid=1767aa857c5296fdb791b01305084bbb [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/LpT4Xp4HWXf44juhTY6_EnC1JBQ/?qid=1767aa857c5296fdb791b01305084bbb [3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/sgYtaqhSC_dlQtVowTB6zZdhlS4/?qid=1767aa857c5296fdb791b01305084bbb ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
