[Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-06: (with COMMENT)
Benjamin Kaduk 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: -- Section 4 Do the two steps listed have to happen in a particular order in order to avoid breakage? ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
[Lsr] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-06: (with DISCUSS)
Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-06: Discuss 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/ -- DISCUSS: -- An easy item to address. Per Section 5, “Specifically, TE traffic may be delivered to the wrong tail-end router, which could lead to suboptimal routing or even traffic loops”, the impact could also include providing access to an attacker. Perhaps: OLD: Specifically, TE traffic may be delivered to the wrong tail-end router, which could lead to suboptimal routing or even traffic loops. NEW: Specifically, TE traffic may be delivered to the wrong tail-end router, which could lead to suboptimal routing; traffic loops; or expose the traffic to attacker inspection or modification. ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
[Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-sr-yang-09.txt
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 SR (Segment Routing) Protocol Authors : Derek Yeung Yingzhen Qu Jeffrey Zhang Ing-Wher Chen Acee Lindem Filename: draft-ietf-ospf-sr-yang-09.txt Pages : 25 Date: 2019-08-07 Abstract: This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to configure and manage OSPF Segment Routing. 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-sr-yang/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-sr-yang-09 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ospf-sr-yang-09 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ospf-sr-yang-09 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
[Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-26.txt
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-26.txt Pages : 127 Date: 2019-08-07 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-26 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ospf-yang-26 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ospf-yang-26 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
[Lsr] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa
cc:ing lsr for input before progress. We have good overlap, but too be sure, the list. The draft cleared WGLC: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa-04 In discussion of next steps, the following comments were made by Alvaro which need to be addressed: - In general, idnits and the IESG likes it very much when the specific phrase “this document updates rfcxxx by…” appears in the Abstract and the Introduction. There’s some similar text there, but not exactly. Just a nit. - There are no Security Considerations!! - Use the rfc8174 template! - "all routers SHOULD be provisioned with and signal the same BAR and IPA values”. When would you not do that? Why is that not a MUST? - “...MUST treat the advertising BFR as incapable of supporting BIER for the sub-domain. How incapable routers are handled is outside the scope of this document.” That is a Normative contradiction? How are routers supposed to meet the MUST if they don’t know what to do? - s/MUST also be clear/MUST also be specified Authors, please address these comments. Xiejingrong has volunteered to be Document Shepherd, once cleared. Thank you, Shep (chairs) ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
