Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: 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
Hi Les,
Good point – I don’t believe any modifications are necessary.
Thanks,
Acee
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
Date: Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 5:46 PM
To: Alvaro Retana , Acee Lindem ,
"Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" , Elwyn Davies
, "gen-...@ietf.org"
Cc: "lsr@ietf.org" , "last-c...@ietf.org" ,
Elwyn’s comment was:
I was trying to understand
why a router that satisfies the previous condition so that it is
legitimate for it to announce ELC with any IP address prefix might wish
to only announce it with some prefixes and not others.
The answer to that is clearly stated in the draft
Hi Alvaro, Elwyn,
From: Alvaro Retana
Date: Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 3:46 PM
To: Acee Lindem , "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" ,
Elwyn Davies , "gen-...@ietf.org"
Cc: "last-c...@ietf.org" ,
"draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc@ietf.org"
, "lsr@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of
Hi!
Yes, we cannot specify something that routers unaware of this specification
should or shouldn’t do.
I believe that Elwyn’s point is this: *if a router supports this
specification* then when would it not advertise the ELC? IOW, the
specification only obviously applies to implementations that
The IESG has received a request from the Link State Routing WG (lsr) to
consider the following document: - 'OSPF Link Traffic Engineering Attribute
Reuse'
as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send
The IESG has received a request from the Link State Routing WG (lsr) to
consider the following document: - 'IS-IS TE Attributes per application'
as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive
Dear authors:
When reviewing the updates to draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-11, I
noticed the following difference with respect to
draft-ietf-isis-te-app-12:
[] draft-ietf-isis-te-app-12:
437 4.2.3. Considerations for Extended TE Metrics
439 [RFC8570] defines a number of
On May 5, 2020 at 6:08:27 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
Peter:
Hi!
...
> I tried to address all of them, some have been resolved during ISIS
> draft review, in which case I took the same resolution for this draf.
>
> Please see inline, look for ##PP
There's only one outstanding comment that I