Peter:
I just looked at this document once more time and found an error in §5:
s/The ERLD-MSD...[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]./The
ERLD-MSD...[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd].
I am going to start the IETF LC, along with the OSPF document. No need to
address this
Hi Alvaro,
On 24/03/2020 17:00, Alvaro Retana wrote:
On March 24, 2020 at 6:44:50 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
I posted a new version - draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-11. It should have all
your inputs incorporated.
Please let me know if you are ok with it. Once it's approved from your
side, I will
On March 24, 2020 at 6:44:50 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
> I posted a new version - draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-11. It should have all
> your inputs incorporated.
>
> Please let me know if you are ok with it. Once it's approved from your
> side, I will update the OSPF draft.
Yes, it looks good to me.
Hi Alvaro,
I posted a new version - draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-11. It should have all
your inputs incorporated.
Please let me know if you are ok with it. Once it's approved from your
side, I will update the OSPF draft.
thanks,
Peter
On 23/03/2020 19:23, Alvaro Retana wrote:
Ok…let’s move
Ok…let’s move forward. No need to add more text.
Alvaro.
On March 23, 2020 at 10:36:42 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) (a...@cisco.com) wrote:
Hi Alvaro,
On 3/23/20, 5:17 AM, "Peter Psenak" wrote:
Hi Alavaro,
On 20/03/2020 19:23, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> On March 20, 2020 at 10:34:59 AM, Peter
Hi Alvaro,
On 3/23/20, 5:17 AM, "Peter Psenak" wrote:
Hi Alavaro,
On 20/03/2020 19:23, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> On March 20, 2020 at 10:34:59 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
>
>
> Peter:
>
>
> I don't really see why one would affect the other.
Hi Alavaro,
On 20/03/2020 19:23, Alvaro Retana wrote:
On March 20, 2020 at 10:34:59 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
Peter:
I don't really see why one would affect the other.
I agree. BMI-MSD is an egress capability and ERLD-MSD is an ingress
capability. While they may be related in the internal
On March 20, 2020 at 10:34:59 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
Peter:
> >>> I don't really see why one would affect the other.
> >>
> >> I agree. BMI-MSD is an egress capability and ERLD-MSD is an ingress
> >> capability. While they may be related in the internal ASIC implementation,
> >> they are
Hi Alvaro,
On 20/03/2020 15:30, Alvaro Retana wrote:
On March 20, 2020 at 10:27:55 AM, Acee Lindem wrote:
…
I don't really see why one would affect the other.
I agree. BMI-MSD is an egress capability and ERLD-MSD is an ingress
capability. While they may be related in the internal ASIC
On March 20, 2020 at 10:27:55 AM, Acee Lindem wrote:
…
> > I don't really see why one would affect the other.
>
> I agree. BMI-MSD is an egress capability and ERLD-MSD is an ingress
> capability. While they may be related in the internal ASIC implementation,
> they are independent from a
Hi Peter Alvaro,
On 3/20/20, 8:58 AM, "Peter Psenak" wrote:
On 20/03/2020 11:59, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> On March 20, 2020 at 6:22:38 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
>
>
> ...
>>> Besides the in-line comments, I want to point out here that this
>>> specification is
On March 20, 2020 at 6:22:38 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
...
> > Besides the in-line comments, I want to point out here that this
> > specification is incomplete. It needs to have (1) a formal description of
> > the new MSD-Type (similar to §5/rfc8491), and (2) a discussion of the
> > interaction
On March 20, 2020 at 6:04:41 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
> please see inline (##PP2):
We're good to go.
The only comment from the original review that you didn't reply to is this:
Besides the in-line comments, I want to point out here that this
specification is incomplete. It needs to
Hi Alvaro,
please see inline (##PP2):
On 19/03/2020 22:48, Alvaro Retana wrote:
On March 16, 2020 at 7:52:18 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
Peter:
Hi!
Let's first close the ISIS ELC draft before starting to work on OSPF
one, as many comments are common and will be applicable to both ISIS and
On March 16, 2020 at 7:52:18 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
Peter:
Hi!
> Let's first close the ISIS ELC draft before starting to work on OSPF
> one, as many comments are common and will be applicable to both ISIS and
> OSPF variants.
Sure, that makes sense.
> Please see inline (##PP):
I replied to
Hi Alvaro - Thanks for the extensive review.
Hi Peter - Thanks for the addressing all the comments.
See one inline.
On 3/16/20, 7:52 AM, "Peter Psenak" wrote:
Hi Alvaro,
thanks for your comments.
Let's first close the ISIS ELC draft before starting to work on OSPF
Hi Alvaro,
thanks for your comments.
Let's first close the ISIS ELC draft before starting to work on OSPF
one, as many comments are common and will be applicable to both ISIS and
OSPF variants.
Please see inline (##PP):
On 29/02/2020 06:00, Alvaro Retana wrote:
Dear authors:
This is my
Authors Dearest,
Please update all the out-of-date references and the copyright date to 2020.
This will resolve the Nits.
https://www6.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-10.txt
Thanks,
Acee (speaking as document shepherd)
On 2/29/20, 12:00
Dear authors:
This is my review of draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-10. I reviewed this
document alongside draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-12, so many comments are
the same/similar. Thank you for the work in both of them!
Besides the in-line comments, I want to point out here that this
specification is
19 matches
Mail list logo
