Hi Ketan,
please responses to some of your comments inline (##PP):
On 11/04/2022 08:25, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
Hello All,
Following are some comments on this draft:
1) Is this draft about opening the use of all IGP Algorithms for IP
(Algo) Routing or intended to be specific to Flexible
From: Lsr on behalf of Reshad Rahman
Sent: 10 April 2022 21:42
Inline.
On Wednesday, April 6, 2022, 06:04:42 PM EDT, Acee Lindem (acee)
wrote:
Hi Chris (as WG member),
On 4/5/22, 10:47 AM, "Christian Hopps"
mailto:cho...@chopps.org>> wrote:
> On Apr 5, 2022, at 09:48, Acee
Hello All,
Following are some comments on this draft:
1) Is this draft about opening the use of all IGP Algorithms for IP (Algo)
Routing or intended to be specific to Flexible Algorithms (i.e. algo
128-255) alone. I think it is important to specify the scope unambiguously.
Perhaps it makes sense
Hi Peter,
Please check inline below.
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 1:06 PM Peter Psenak wrote:
> Hi Ketan,
>
> please responses to some of your comments inline (##PP):
>
> On 11/04/2022 08:25, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
> > Hello All,
> >
> > Following are some comments on this draft:
> >
> > 1) Is
Do we have reason to believe that no one outside the IETF has used
ip-address as we published in ways that need a zone?
It seems to me that the first step in the plan below is reasonable. But
changing ip-address itself seems a bad idea. If one means no-zone, use
the -no-zone typedef.
See inline.
On 4/11/22, 5:13 AM, "tom petch" wrote:
From: Lsr on behalf of Reshad Rahman
Sent: 10 April 2022 21:42
Inline.
On Wednesday, April 6, 2022, 06:04:42 PM EDT, Acee Lindem (acee)
wrote:
Hi Chris (as WG member),
On 4/5/22, 10:47 AM, "Christian Hopps"
Hi all,
Thanks for the comments on this thread so far. It would be nice if we are able
to come to some sort of rough consensus to a solution.
I think that there is consensus that the YANG type ip-address (and the v4/v6
versions) are badly named as the prominent default type name has been
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 10:07 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for the comments on this thread so far. It would be nice if we are
> able to come to some sort of rough consensus to a solution.
>
> I think that there is consensus that the YANG type ip-address (and the
> v4/v6
Speaking as WG member inline.
From: netmod on behalf of Andy Bierman
Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 at 1:28 PM
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)"
Cc: "lsr@ietf.org" , "net...@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at
Hi Rob,
Thanks for the thoughtful proposal, and I support it.
One thing to confirm, for models that may become RFCs in the next two years and
where the IP address doesn’t support zones, "ip-address” should still be used.
Correct?
Thanks,
Yingzhen
> On Apr 11, 2022, at 10:06 AM, Rob Wilton
10 matches
Mail list logo
