Re: [Lsr] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-06

[Alissa Cooper]

Roni, thanks for your review. I entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa


> On Jun 30, 2019, at 7:27 AM, Roni Even via Datatracker  
> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Roni Even
> Review result: Ready
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> .
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-??
> Reviewer: Roni Even
> Review Date: 2019-06-30
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-07-11
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: The document is ready for publication as a standard track RFC
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> 
> ___
> Gen-art mailing list
> gen-...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

[Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-25.txt

[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   : YANG Data Model for OSPF Protocol
Authors : Derek Yeung
  Yingzhen Qu
  Jeffrey Zhang
  Ing-Wher Chen
  Acee Lindem
Filename: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-25.txt
Pages   : 127
Date: 2019-08-05

Abstract:
   This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to configure
   and manage OSPF.  The model is based on YANG 1.1 as defined in RFC
   7950 and conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture
   (NDMA) as described in RFC 8342.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-yang/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-yang-25
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ospf-yang-25

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ospf-yang-25


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-06: (with COMMENT)

[Acee Lindem (acee)]

Hi Eric,

On 8/5/19, 7:52 AM, "Éric Vyncke via Datatracker"  wrote:

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te/



--
COMMENT:
--

Alvara, Anton, Michael,

Thank you for the work done for this document.

Just curious about section 3: OSPFv2 routers send their IPv6 address(es) and
OSPFv3 routers send their IPv4 address(es). But, what happens when OSPFv3
routers are multi-topology ? Should they also send their IPv6 address(es)? 
Of
course, in this case, the issue fixed by your memo does not exist ;-) 
Probably
worth mentioning anyway that OSPFv3 multi-topology does not need this 
feature.

With https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5838/, separate instances are required 
for IPv4 and IPv6 topologies. With this enhancement, you'd only need to 
advertise TE information in one of those instances. 

Thanks,
Acee

Regards,

-éric




___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

[Lsr] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-06: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te/



--
COMMENT:
--

Alvara, Anton, Michael,

Thank you for the work done for this document.

Just curious about section 3: OSPFv2 routers send their IPv6 address(es) and
OSPFv3 routers send their IPv4 address(es). But, what happens when OSPFv3
routers are multi-topology ? Should they also send their IPv6 address(es)? Of
course, in this case, the issue fixed by your memo does not exist ;-) Probably
worth mentioning anyway that OSPFv3 multi-topology does not need this feature.

Regards,

-éric


___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr