Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt

2018-04-04 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Fine with me. More important, I would like to fast track this bis document since the changes are so pointed and directly affect the probability of interoperable implementations. How quickly can we move to WG status? Can we do that even before the name change – so I can issue

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt

2018-04-04 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
I think the WG name should be in the expected place in the file name. I seem to remember some drafts with -bgp- rather than -idr- that flew under the radar for a while. Thanks, Acee From: Tony Li Date: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 4:03 PM To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt

2018-04-04 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
Hi Les, I considered this as well. On 4/4/18, 3:39 PM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" wrote: Well...this raises a topic on which I would like to have feedback from the WG. Combining IS-IS/OSPF into one working group is fine - no argument there. But, we now

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt

2018-04-04 Thread Stefano Previdi
and, probably, this draft won't stay a draft long enough for the problem to have any sort of materialisation. s. On Wed, Apr 4, 2018, 10:03 PM Tony Li wrote: > > I don’t see the big deal in having the WG name in the draft title, even > for category 1 documents. > > It’s

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt

2018-04-04 Thread Tony Li
I don’t see the big deal in having the WG name in the draft title, even for category 1 documents. It’s only the name of the draft and the fact that it is protocol specific doesn’t really need to be called out at that level. People who read the document will certainly figure it out. Tony On

Re: [Lsr] Inconsistence regarding the definition of "Adj-SID Sub-TLV" between OSPF and ISIS extension for Segment Routing

2018-04-04 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
A strong +1 from me as well. This is a clear example where the functional content is the same, but differences exist in the encoding for reasons which are specific to each protocol. Les > -Original Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of Peter Psenak (ppsenak) >

[Lsr] OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family MPLS Traffic Engineering Tunnels

2018-04-04 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
Hi Anton, Alvaro, and Mike, In preparation for WG last call, I have a couple comments. 1. Have you considered a shorter name for the RFC? For example: “OSPF Cross Address Family Traffic Engineering Tunnels”? 2. Can you change the requirements language text to the RFC 8174 version? 3.

[Lsr] RFC 8362 on OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA) Extensibility

2018-04-04 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org Wed, 04 April 2018 04:08 UTCShow header A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 8362 Title: OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement

Re: [Lsr] Inconsistence regarding the definition of "Adj-SID Sub-TLV" between OSPF and ISIS extension for Segment Routing

2018-04-04 Thread Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
< including IDR WG where BGP-LS work is being done > Hi Aijun, As discussed offline, this is a bug in this particular implementation where it is not following the spec properly. This goes back to the discussion in the IDR WG about the semantic and syntactic validation for BGP-LS messages