I support adoption of this document by the WG.
Regards,
Reshad.
From: BESS on behalf of "stephane.litkow...@orange.com"
Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 3:37 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org"
Subject: [bess] WG adoption call & IPR poll for draft-jain-bess-evpn-lsp-ping
Hi,
This email begins a two-week p
+1 to Anoop's comments. I've made similar comment to Greg privately, and
Anoop's proposed text clears things up.
Regards,
Reshad (no hat).
On 2018-12-19, 1:54 AM, "Rtg-bfd on behalf of Anoop Ghanwani"
wrote:
Hi Greg,
Yes this captures what I was trying to get added.
Per
Since BGP may be used to exchange discriminators for EVPN also, would it
make sense to have a sepaarte BESS draft just for BFD discriminator
exchange?
Regards,
Reshad.
On 2016-07-21, 2:46 PM, "BESS on behalf of Reshad Rahman (rrahman)"
wrote:
>I second the comments made by Greg,
I second the comments made by Greg, Ccing BFD WG since BFD multipoint is
used for failure detection and BGP is being extended to carry BFD
discriminator.
Regards,
Reshad.
On 2016-07-07, 10:23 AM, "BESS on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.org"
wrote:
>
>A New Internet-Draft is available from the
Hi,
Some questions on the draft:
- Section 4 mentions that LSP-Ping is needed to exchange discriminators
because the MPLS label stack doesn¹t contain enough information to
disambiguate the sender of the session. Isn¹t the IP hdr enough?
- Section 7.1.1 mentions SH label, I believe this is the ES
Support adoption as WG doc.
On 2016-05-04, 10:17 AM, "BESS on behalf of Thomas Morin"
wrote:
>Hello working group,
>
>This email starts a two-week poll on adopting
>draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang [1] as a working group document.
>
>Please state on the list if you support adoption or not (in both
Support as co-author.
Not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
Regards,
Reshad.
On 2016-05-04, 10:17 AM, "BESS on behalf of Thomas Morin"
wrote:
>Hello working group,
>
>This email starts a two-week poll on adopting
>draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang [1] as a working group document.
>
>Pleas
Support.
On 2015-02-10, 4:38 AM, "Martin Vigoureux"
wrote:
>Authors, Working Group,
>
>this poll has ended and we are not in a position to adopt this document.
>The support is quite limited, and not all the authors have replied to
>the IPR question.
>We are thus extending this poll until the
