The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Registry and Extensions for P-Multicast Service Interface Tunnel
Attribute Flags'
(draft-ietf-bess-pta-flags-03.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the BGP Enabled ServiceS Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are
FYI
Yours Irrespectively,
John
-Original Message-
From: John E Drake [mailto:jdr...@juniper.net]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 9:54 AM
To: EXT - thomas.mo...@orange.com; Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US);
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-v...@ietf.org; EXT Ali Sajassi (sajassi); EXT Sami Boutros
Cc: BESS
Hi Jorge, all,
While looking at pending shepherd write-ups, I noticed that
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree is also asking for the same sub-type (0x04) [1].
Hopefully there will be a nice way to sort this out, but the lesson is
that we collectively fail to get the benefits that a First Come First
As a co-author, I support this document being adopted.
Not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
Thanks.
Robin
-邮件原件-
发件人: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Thomas Morin
发送时间: 2016年5月4日 22:18
收件人: bess@ietf.org
抄送: draft-brissette-bess-evpn-y...@tools.ietf.org
主题: [bess] Poll
The BESS WG has placed draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang in state
Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Martin Vigoureux)
The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang/
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
The BESS WG has placed draft-brissette-bess-evpn-yang in state
Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Martin Vigoureux)
The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-brissette-bess-evpn-yang/
___
BESS mailing list
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS of the IETF.
Title : Multicast VPN state damping
Authors : Thomas Morin
Stephane Litkowski
Hi Jorge, all,
Jorge:
11) IANA considerations: the authors have agreed to request the value ‘4’ for
the Extended Community Sub-Type, since there are existing implementations using
that value.
Note that given the FCFS policy of this part of the registry [1], you
could ask for this value now
