Re: [Lsr] IPR Call for "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions" - draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00

2018-04-09 Thread Stefano Previdi
Hi Acee, all, I'm not aware of any undisclosed IPR related to this draft. Thanks. s. On Mon, Apr 9, 2018, 9:39 PM Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Authors, > > > > Are you aware of any IPR that applies to > draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00 in addition to the IPR declared on >

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption call for "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions" - draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00

2018-04-09 Thread Paul Wells
Support (as an implementer of the existing rfc7810). Paul Wells On 04/09/2018 02:20 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: This draft simply fixes a problem in RFC 7810 that resulted in an incompatibility issue with implementations. Given the simplicity of this document, I’d like to have an

Re: [Lsr] IPR Call for "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions" - draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00

2018-04-09 Thread John E Drake
I’m not aware of any IPR. Yours Irrespectively, John From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 3:39 PM To: draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-rfc7810...@ietf.org Cc: lsr@ietf.org Subject: [Lsr] IPR Call for "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption call for "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions" - draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00

2018-04-09 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
Speaking a WG member: I also support correcting this problem. Thanks, Acee From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" Date: Monday, April 9, 2018 at 3:28 PM To: Acee Lindem , "lsr@ietf.org" Subject: RE: LSR WG Adoption call for "IS-IS Traffic Engineering

Re: [Lsr] IPR Call for "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions" - draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00

2018-04-09 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR. Les From: Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 12:39 PM To: draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-rfc7810...@ietf.org Cc: lsr@ietf.org Subject: IPR Call for "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions" - draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00

[Lsr] IPR Call for "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions" - draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00

2018-04-09 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
Authors, Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00 in addition to the IPR declared on RFC 7810: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft=draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption call for "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions" - draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00

2018-04-09 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Support (as co-author). This correction is needed to insure that interoperability is assured. Les From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 12:20 PM To: lsr@ietf.org Subject: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption call for "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE)

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

2018-04-09 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Submitted. Les > -Original Message- > From: Acee Lindem (acee) > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 10:42 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis- > rfc7810bis-00.txt > > Hi Les, > >

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG IPR Query for "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using OSPF" - draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-10.txt (one more @#$ time)

2018-04-09 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Acee, I'm not aware of any IPR related to this draft. thanks, Peter On 06/04/18 03:27 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: Authors, Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-10.txt? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs

[Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-10.txt

2018-04-09 Thread internet-drafts
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 : Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using IS-IS Authors : Jeff Tantsura Uma

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

2018-04-09 Thread Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Hi Aijun, As responded previously and also clarified by few others, the 3 IGP protocols (ISIS, OSPFv2 and OSPFv3) and BGP-LS are different protocols. Their encodings need not be identical. However, their semantics generally are so when it comes mapping them into BGP-LS. At this stage, given