Hi, Les:
发件人: forwardingalgori...@ietf.org [mailto:forwardingalgori...@ietf.org] 代表 Les
Ginsberg (ginsberg)
发送时间: 2024年1月9日 5:03
收件人: Yingzhen Qu ; lsr ; lsr-chairs
主题: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-wang-lsr-stub-link-attributes
(01/05/2024 - 01/19/2024)
I oppose WG adoption.
Hi, Acee:
发件人: forwardingalgori...@ietf.org [mailto:forwardingalgori...@ietf.org] 代表 Acee
Lindem
发送时间: 2024年1月9日 3:03
收件人: Yingzhen Qu
抄送: lsr
主题: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-wang-lsr-stub-link-attributes
(01/05/2024 - 01/19/2024)
Speaking as WG member:
I don’t support
Hi folks,
As a co-author, I am unaware of any IPR to this document.
Best regards
Chenhao Ma
> On Jan 9, 2024, at 06:43, Acee Lindem wrote:
>
> Co-Authors,
>
> Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-06.
> If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with
Hi Acee,
No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this document.
Best regards,
Jie
> -Original Message-
> From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.i...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 6:43 AM
> To: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn...@ietf.org
> Cc: Lsr
> Subject: IPR Poll for WG Last
Hi folks,
As a co-author, Hi folks, I am unaware of any IPR to this draft.
Best regards
Chongfeng
From: Acee Lindem
Date: 2024-01-09 06:43
To: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt
CC: Lsr
Subject: [Lsr] IPR Poll for WG Last Call of "Applicability of IS-IS
Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment
This begins a two week LSR Working Group last call for the “Applicability of
IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Network Resource Partition
(NRP)”. Please express your support or objection prior to Tuesday, January
23rd, 2024.
Thanks,
Acee
Co-Authors,
Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-06.
If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
(see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond
to this email
I oppose WG adoption.
The reasons that I opposed adoption the first time remain valid:
1)The use of a prefix to represent a link is a flawed concept
2) RFC 9346 (previously RFC 5316) and RFC 5392 (as well as BGP-LS) are
available to address the use cases.
The updated draft does nothing to
I think Acee is correct
On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 11:03:17 AM PST, Acee Lindem
wrote:
Speaking as WG member:
I don’t support adoption of this draft.
First of all, I think the basic premise of the draft is flawed in that a link
is advertised as a stub and, from that, one can
Speaking as WG member:
I don’t support adoption of this draft.
First of all, I think the basic premise of the draft is flawed in that a link
is advertised as a stub and, from that, one can deduce uses of the link. Why
not just advertise what is being deduced?
Second, I don’t think the draft
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ospf-sr-yang-28.txt is now available. It is a work
item of the Link State Routing (LSR) WG of the IETF.
Title: A YANG Data Model for OSPF Segment Routing for the MPLS Data Plane
Authors: Yingzhen Qu
Acee Lindem
Jeffrey Zhang
11 matches
Mail list logo
