Hi Chris and Acee, and everyone,
I would like to request working group adoption of "Topology-Transparent
Zone"
(TTZ for short) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-isis-ttz/ .
This draft comprises the following solutions for helping to improve
scalability:
1) abstrac
+1 on “application-specific”. It is used in the draft, that’s how I got it in
my YANG example.
Thanks,
Yingzhen
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
Date: Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 2:08 PM
To: John E Drake , Yingzhen Qu ,
"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" , "BRUNGARD,
DEBORAH A" , The IESG
Cc: "lsr-cha.
+1 to “Application-Specific”
Cheers,
Jeff
On Jun 18, 2020, 2:09 PM -0700, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
, wrote:
> John –
>
> Yes – I like “Application-Specific” better. This matches the term we use
> throughout the documents.
>
> Thanx.
>
> Les
>
> From: John E Drake
> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2
John -
Yes - I like "Application-Specific" better. This matches the term we use
throughout the documents.
Thanx.
Les
From: John E Drake
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 1:37 PM
To: Yingzhen Qu ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A ;
The IESG
Cc: lsr-ch
I had mentioned "Application Specific"
Yours Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Yingzhen Qu
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 4:30 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A ;
The IESG
Cc: lsr-cha...@ietf.org; aretana.i...@gmail.com; Acee L
Hi Les,
The proposed new titles are much better than the old ones. I’m debating between
“application-scoped” and “application-based”, but no strong opinion. It’s up to
you and Peter to decide a good name.
Thanks,
Yingzhen
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
Date: Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 11:04
Dear authors:
First of all, thank you for taking on this work!
I have some comments which I home will be easy to address -- please
see in-line below. I will wait for a revised ID before starting the
IETF Last Call.
Before getting into the specifics, idnits came up with this warning:
=
Deborah Brungard has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-isis-te-app-17: Abstain
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:
Yingzhen –
Thanx for providing the YANG example – and for taking on the additions to the
IGP YANG models.
Regarding changing the titles of the documents, I see your point. The work
started because of issues related to different TE applications (RSVP-TE and SR
Policy) – but you are correct that
Hi Acee, Les,
But the configuration control is not required, it is in small caps “will
require”. So there is no guarantee it will be even present. Bruno and myself
requested this should be stronger “MUST” or “REQUIRED”. And for “legacy”
RSVP-TE applications, recommend a default, OFF, to ensure
Hi Les, Deborah,
I agree with Les. Especially since we’ve discussed and evolved these encodings
in the LSR WG for over 3 years now. With the zero-length attribute bit mask, we
essentially have the equivalent of the legacy advertisements, as well as all
the limitations. As long as configuration i
Hi Rob,
Thank you for your comments, and I agree with you that a sever implementation
could use a deviation to add a default if needed.
This YANG will be augmenting base OSPF and ISIS model at protocol instance
level.
Thanks,
Yingzhen
From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)"
Date: Thursday, June 18, 202
Just FYI ...
An interesting discussion on nanog/cisco-nsp lists ... started innocent
with SRv6 bashing, now went into IGP - specifically ISIS territory :)
-- Forwarded message -
From: Saku Ytti
Date: Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: Devil's Advocate - Segment Routing,
Hi Yingzhen,
Just commenting for a YANG configuration perspective, I think that the YANG you
propose is a reasonable approach.
In future, when it is clear the default behaviour should be app-specific, then
the YANG could be changed to remove the mandatory true and add a default. The
combinati
14 matches
Mail list logo
