Re: [i2rs] Ignas Bagdonas' Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Ignas: Thank you for the clarifying email. I just wanted to understand the type of discuss. This statement clarifies the discuss: DISCUSS is based on the impact of proposed mechanism to operations This matches the following category from DISCUSS:"It would present serious

Re: [i2rs] Ignas Bagdonas' Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Sue, I am responding as a DISCUSS holder. Warren may have different ABSTAIN views. On 05/04/2018 16:12, Susan Hares wrote: Ignas and Warren: Your comments on the IESG telechat (4/5/2018) have two components: 1) a DISCUSS based on direct comparison of the I2RS models (dynamic and

[i2rs] Ignas Bagdonas' No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10: (with COMMENT)

Ignas Bagdonas has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please

[i2rs] Ignas Bagdonas' No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-15: (with COMMENT)

Ignas Bagdonas has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-15: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please

[i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-15: (with COMMENT)

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-15: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please

Re: [i2rs] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10: (with COMMENT)

Adam: Good catch. If you see any others, please let me know. This initially was a "hack" to provide references. We'll go with the yang:mac-address for the MAC Address. I will also ask the RTG-DIR whether we should make this an index into the actual MACS. I do not think that is

Re: [i2rs] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10: (with COMMENT)

Warren: I cannot find your original text - so I hope this email finds you quickly. As the shepherd reviewer, I'll encourage the authors to fix the nits. Thank you. Do you want re-review any of issues before publication? Susan Hares -- On the large question, see

Re: [i2rs] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-15: (with COMMENT)

Suresh: On WG discussions, LPM = Longest prefix match? If so, LPM was discussed. I will follow-up with the authors on resolving this in section 6. Thanks for catching this error. Cheerily, Sue -Original Message- From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:sur...@kaloom.com] Sent:

Re: [i2rs] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-14

Peter, thanks for your review. Authors, thanks for addressing some of Peter’s comments. I tried to pick out those of his comments that remain unaddressed and put them in my No Objection ballot. Alissa > On Feb 23, 2018, at 8:35 PM, Peter Yee wrote: > > Reviewer: Peter Yee >

[i2rs] FW: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-14

Alissa: Here’s Nitin’s response to Peter. Sue Hares From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nitin Bahadur Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 2:55 AM To: pe...@akayla.com Cc: i2rs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [i2rs] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of

Re: [i2rs] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Suresh: Thank you for catching these issues. I missed these as a Shepherd (as did the other reviewers) and AD. See my answers below. Would you or Martin hold a discuss until these critical issues are resolved and checked with the YANG doctors? I will work with the authors to resolve these

Re: [i2rs] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Martin: Thank you for the proactive response on the types. I'll work with the authors to change to these standard types. Sue -Original Message- From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:m...@tail-f.com] Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 10:06 AM To: sha...@ndzh.com Cc: sur...@kaloom.com;

Re: [i2rs] Ignas Bagdonas' No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-15: (with COMMENT)

Ignas: Thank you for your comments. I will check that these are addressed in the next version. Cheerily, Susan Hares -Original Message- From: Ignas Bagdonas [mailto:ibagd...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 8:01 AM To: The IESG Cc: draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-mo...@ietf.org;

Re: [i2rs] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-14

Peter and Alissa: Thank you for your careful review. I believe I saw Nitin's reply to Peter's comments in email - so I'll look for that email and forward it. As Shepherd, I will work with the authors to try to address the issues in 2.2, and section 5. >I think there's a discussion missing

Re: [i2rs] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-15: (with COMMENT)

Suresh: Thank you for catching these errors. See my comments below. Summary: Section 2.3 (good catch). Section 4 and 6 - I think the document represents the WG consensus. I will review the emails, WG documents, and contact previous chairs. Susan Hares -Original Message- From:

Re: [i2rs] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi, There are standard types for IPv6 flow label and for MAC addresses defined in RFC 6991: inet:ipv6-flow-label yang:mac-address /martin "Susan Hares" wrote: > Suresh: > > Thank you for catching these issues. I missed these as a Shepherd (as did > the other

Re: [i2rs] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10: (with COMMENT)

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Susan Hares wrote: > Warren: > > > > I cannot find your original text – so I hope this email finds you quickly. > > > > As the shepherd reviewer, I’ll encourage the authors to fix the nits. Thank > you. Do you want re-review any of issues before

Re: [i2rs] Ignas Bagdonas' Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Ignas and Warren: Your comments on the IESG telechat (4/5/2018) have two components: 1) a DISCUSS based on direct comparison of the I2RS models (dynamic and configuration) with the TE models (configuration only), 2) "This will not work". I need clarity to guide the WG/authors to a successful

Re: [i2rs] Ignas Bagdonas' Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Susan Hares wrote: > Ignas and Warren: > > Your comments on the IESG telechat (4/5/2018) have two components: > 1) a DISCUSS based on direct comparison of the I2RS models (dynamic and > configuration) with the TE models (configuration only), 2)

Re: [i2rs] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-14

Hi Alissa & Peter, The issues were addressed in version 15 of the draft. Nitin From: Susan Hares Date: Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 6:52 AM To: 'Alissa Cooper' , 'Peter Yee' Cc: , , 'The IESG'

Re: [i2rs] Ignas Bagdonas' Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Warren: Thank you for making clear your concerns. I started with the same concerns and came to resolve these concerns. I will try to write up a clear summary of why I resolved it. However, I do not have some of the same datacenter perspective you or Ignas has. I would like your review on