Hi Jimmy,
Thanks for the review and comments.Pls see inline
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Dongjie (Jimmy)
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 7:58 AM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Acee Lindem (acee)
; lsr@ietf.org
Cc: draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for
Hi Pengshaofu,
If an operator wants to configure any other metric type draft provides a
mechanism with generic metric.
Generic metric allows any standard or user-defined type metric to be configured.
The draft allows for any computing application such as Flex-algo, CSPF etc to
make use of the
Thanks to Peter for his response to my third comment.
Could the authors also reply to the other comments (1, 2, 4) in the below mail?
Many thanks.
Best regards,
Jie
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dongjie (Jimmy)
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 3:52 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) ;
The following errata report has been rejected for RFC5185,
"OSPF Multi-Area Adjacency".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6506
--
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Reported by:
Hi Peter,
On 5/17/21, 9:07 AM, "Peter Psenak" wrote:
Hi Acee,
On 17/05/2021 14:56, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Yes – I think “updates” should be removed. Registries are created
> explicitly for the purpose of tracking extensions and every document
Hi Acee,
On 17/05/2021 14:56, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Hi John,
Yes – I think “updates” should be removed. Registries are created
explicitly for the purpose of tracking extensions and every document
that adds to a registry should not update the document creating that
registry. Now if the
Hi John,
thanks for your comments, please see inline (##PP):
On 13/05/2021 17:43, John Scudder via Datatracker wrote:
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply
Hi John,
Yes – I think “updates” should be removed. Registries are created explicitly
for the purpose of tracking extensions and every document that adds to a
registry should not update the document creating that registry. Now if the
definition or application of the registry were changed, which
Acee,
I think you are saying you prefer to remove the “updates”. Is that right? It
was a little confusing given the reply chain.
(I’ve already given my opinion but said I’m not going to go to the mat over it.)
—John
On May 17, 2021, at 8:21 AM, Acee Lindem (acee)
wrote:
That we be my
That we be my preference as well. We’ve had several discussions on what
constitutes “update” and I believe that the consensus was that a document isn’t
“updated” unless the current behavior is changed. If we’ve done our jobs,
protocols are designed to be extended and these extensions shouldn’t
Peter:
Hi!
As John mentioned, "Since for better or worse we don’t have a firm
definition of when we do, and don’t, use “updates”, it comes down to a
matter of personal taste in the end.”
I rather you leave it in.
Thanks!
Alvaro.
On May 17, 2021 at 6:42:48 AM, Peter Psenak (ppse...@cisco.com)
John, Alvaro,
do we have a consensus whether we need the update to RFC 7370 or not?
thanks,
Peter
On 13/05/2021 21:12, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
Alvaro –
FWIW, I agree w John here.
There are many examples – to cite a few:
Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141, 222, and 223 (Extended IS
Hi Shraddha,
The two methods of automatic generation of BW-metric introduced in the draft
are also likely to be the method of manual configuration of BW-metric by
operators. Operators can certainly manually configure any BW-metric he wants
to configure.
However, the manually configured
13 matches
Mail list logo
