Hi Russ,
Thanks for your review.
Ketan
On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 7:24 PM Russ Housley via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Reviewer: Russ Housley
> Review result: Ready
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF
Hi Acee/Chris,
Any update on this?
Thanks,
Ketan
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 9:23 PM Ketan Talaulikar
wrote:
> Hi Acee/Chris,
>
> Now that the WGLC is done for this document, would it be a good time to
> request for early allocation for the pending item (OSPFv3 PrefixOption)?
>
> Please refer:
>
Hi All,
Thanks for the discussion and inputs. The plan proposed by John looks good
to me and we've just posted an update for the L2 Bundle member draft so it
can progress further without the IANA changes.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-06
Thanks,
Ketan
On
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.
Title : Advertising Layer 2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in
OSPF
Authors : Ketan Talaulikar
Dear Tony Przygienda, Chris Bowers, Yiu Lee, Alankar Sharma, Russ White:
An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "IS-IS Flood
Reflection" (draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection) was submitted to the IETF
Secretariat on 2022-09-12 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of
The following errata report has been verified for RFC3277,
"Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Transient Blackhole
Avoidance".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7127
Thanks John - I the changes in -21 and -22 improve the specification.
Acee
On 9/12/22, 8:41 AM, "Lsr on behalf of John Scudder" wrote:
Hi Peter,
Thanks. I’ve requested IETF LC.
—John
> On Sep 12, 2022, at 7:36 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
>
>
> Hi John,
>
From: John Scudder
Sent: 12 September 2022 13:47
Hi Tom,
Needless (?) to say, I’m sympathetic with your position, and thanks for
bringing up the parallel case. I take it however, that you aren’t taking the
position that this reorganization/restructuring/call it what you will needs to
be done
The IESG has received a request from the Link State Routing WG (lsr) to
consider the following document: - 'IGP Flexible Algorithm'
as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to
Hi Henk,
> My point was: multipart TLVs exist today, before the introduction of the
> capability advertisement. So when you look at a LSPDB, you still don't know
> for
> sure which routers support multipart TLVs. Some might, but don't advertise it.
> Because their software was written before
Hi John,
Agree - this can go straight to verified.
Thanks,
Acee
On 9/12/22, 8:54 AM, "Lsr on behalf of RFC Errata System"
wrote:
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC3277,
"Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Transient Blackhole
Avoidance".
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC3277,
"Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Transient Blackhole
Avoidance".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7127
Hi Tom,
Needless (?) to say, I’m sympathetic with your position, and thanks for
bringing up the parallel case. I take it however, that you aren’t taking the
position that this reorganization/restructuring/call it what you will needs to
be done by draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles, though? Right
Hi Peter,
Thanks. I’ve requested IETF LC.
—John
> On Sep 12, 2022, at 7:36 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
>
>
> Hi John,
>
> please see inline (##PP2)
>
> On 09/09/2022 17:29, John Scudder wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Thanks for your reply and for the ping.
>>
>> Where necessary I’ve replied in
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.
Title : IGP Flexible Algorithm
Authors : Peter Psenak
Shraddha Hegde
Hi John,
please see inline (##PP2)
On 09/09/2022 17:29, John Scudder wrote:
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your reply and for the ping.
Where necessary I’ve replied in line below. I’ve snipped any points that
are agreed and don’t need further discussion. I’ve also reviewed the -21
diffs, basically
Hi Tony,
> Some exist today. There are many TLVs where they have never been specified.
My point was: multipart TLVs exist today, before the introduction of the
capability advertisement. So when you look at a LSPDB, you still don't know for
sure which routers support multipart TLVs. Some might,
From: Lsr on behalf of John Scudder
Sent: 06 September 2022 22:04
> On Sep 6, 2022, at 5:00 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>
>I guess if we do decide to either abandon the reorganization suggestion
> altogether, or to pursue it as a separate draft, then
> draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles
18 matches
Mail list logo
