Hi Dhruv,
Thanks for the quick turnaround. It looks good to me. One nit, I believe a
period was added to “However, as noted in [RFC6952].,” by mistake.
Thanks,
Acee
From: Lsr on behalf of Dhruv Dhody
Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 9:06 AM
To: Lars Eggert
Cc: The IESG ,
r SRv6" - draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-06.txt
Hi Acee,
I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR that applies to
draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-06.txt
thanks,
Zhibo
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2022 1:15 A
Moved the meeting to avoid both US Labor Day week and Chinese Autumn Holiday
week...
Thanks,
Acee
On 8/10/22, 2:55 PM, "Lsr on behalf of IESG Secretary" wrote:
MEETING DETAILS HAVE CHANGED. SEE LATEST DETAILS BELOW.
The Link State Routing (lsr) WG will hold
a virtual interim
Hey Robin,
Haven't received your WG last call IPR poll response yet - I guess you were
waiting for this to be posted?
Thanks,
Acee
On 8/11/22, 10:47 AM, "Lsr on behalf of IETF Secretariat"
wrote:
Dear Zhenbin Li, Zhibo Hu, Ketan Talaulikar, Peter Psenak:
An IPR disclosure that
Speaking as WG member:
I support publication of this draft. I reviewed the draft and my comments have
been incorporated.
Thanks,
Acee
From: Lsr on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)"
Date: Friday, July 29, 2022 at 1:18 PM
To: lsr
Cc: "draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensi...@ietf
Speaking as WG member:
I agree with Les. A non-backward compatible change is a non-starter.
I’m not sure why you’d need to present this again at the Interim unless you
provide backward compatibility.
Thanks,
Acee
From: Lsr on behalf of "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
Date: Friday, August 12,
I support WG adoption. The clarifications in the BIS document were discussed in
the course of the flex algorithm draft.
Thanks,
Acee
On 8/8/22, 6:22 AM, "Christian Hopps" wrote:
Hi Folks,
This begins a 2 week WG Adoption Call for the following draft:
I support WG adoption. The clarifications in the BIS document were discussed in
the course of the flex algorithm draft.
Thanks,
Acee
On 8/8/22, 6:21 AM, "Christian Hopps" wrote:
Hi Folks,
This begins a 2 week WG Adoption Call for the following draft:
Hi Aijun,
And the BIS changes are more clarifications than changes to the existing RFC
8919 and RFC 8920 RFCs.
Thanks,
Acee
On 8/9/22, 5:57 AM, "Peter Psenak" wrote:
Aijun,
On 09/08/2022 05:35, Aijun Wang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering why we are so hurry to
As a contributor, I'm not aware of any IPR related to the draft.
Thanks,
Acee
On 8/8/22, 9:55 AM, "Peter Psenak" wrote:
Hi Chris,
I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft.
thanks,
Peter
On 08/08/2022 06:17, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
run
>> different SPF algorithm, update at different frequencies, forming
different
>> forwarding tables etc. It is necessary to divide/group all the above
items based
>> on application, not just the attributes.
>>
>>
>> Aij
r SRv6" -
draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-06.txt (Corrected Address)
Hi Acee,
Please check inline below.
On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 8:06 PM Acee Lindem (acee)
mailto:a...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hi Ketan,
From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of
Ketan Talaulikar mail
ingzhen
On Jul 29, 2022, at 10:16 AM, Acee Lindem (acee)
mailto:acee=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
As promised in today’s LSR WG meeting, this begins a 3 week WG Last Call,
ending on August 19th, 2022, for draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions. The
extra week is to account for
re moving.
Looking for feedback/input from the WG on this proposed change.
I think we’d just need to get feedback from Dirk (who made the comment that
initiated this) and the co-authors. Of course, anyone with know of OSPFv3 SRv6
can comment.
Thanks,
Acee
Thanks,
Ketan
On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 10:47 PM
G and RTGWG WGs on
redundancy and protection features that leverage anycast.
I think we’re agreeing, I’ve seen the same use case presentations and it is,
IMO, a far better usage than prefix unreachability
Thanks,
Acee
Thanks,
Ketan
On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 8:44 PM Acee Lindem (acee)
mailto:a.
Speaking as WG member:
Hi Tony,
Great improvement to the prior version of the draft – I’d now support adoption.
My two comments at the mike were:
1. Potentially add text to text to section 2.1 and 2.2 to allow for N
flooding paths t the neighbors on the TNL.
2. Suggested clarificiton
on’t aren’t
without significant issues.
Thanks,
Acee
--- tony
From: Acee Lindem (acee)
Date: Monday, 1 August 2022 at 07:42
To: Antoni Przygienda , Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
, lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Comments on draft-white-lsr-distoptflood-03
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
S
Ginsberg and I believe updates
were discussed. Please continue this discussion with the working group version
of the document.
Thanks,
Acee
From: Acee Lindem (acee)
Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 3:01 PM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Optimal Distributed Flo
Speaking as WG member:
I support publication.
Thanks,
Acee
On 12/7/22, 9:05 AM, "Christian Hopps" mailto:cho...@chopps.org>> wrote:
This begins a 2 week WG Last Call, ending Dec 21, 2022, for:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis/
Speaking as a contributor and WG member:
I am not aware of any IPR. I support publication.
Thanks,
Acee
On 12/7/22, 9:07 AM, "Christian Hopps" mailto:cho...@chopps.org>> wrote:
This begins a 2 week WG Last Call, ending Dec 21, 2022, for:
RFC 8349 uses an unbounded string for control-plane-protocol so this definition
would be consistent. However, we've been putting bounds on strings that are
encoded in packets and this is probably something we should do for all strings.
container control-plane-protocols {
description
Speaking as WG member.
See one inline.
From: Lsr on behalf of Tony Li
Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 6:23 PM
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
Cc: Bruno Decraene , lsr
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-02.txt
Bruno, Les,
Some responses inline –
This version includes Ketan Talauikar's comments including clarification of
BGP-LS advertisement.
Thanks,
Acee
On 11/28/22, 3:14 PM, "Lsr on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.org"
wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a
All,
The NomCom is tasked with selecting the IETF leadership, like the IESG and the
IAB. For the NomCom to be able to make an informed decision, they need feedback
from the wider IETF community.
Please, allocate some time to provide feedback on people that you interacted
with to help the
Authors,
Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-white-lsr-distoptflood-03.txt?
The following IPR declarations have been disclosed:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft=draft-white-lsr-distoptflood
If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
LSR WG,
This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-white-lsr-distoptflood/
The draft would be adopted on the Informational or Experimental track.
Please indicate your support or objection by December 7th, 2022.
Also indicate whether
x,
R.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 11:47 AM Acee Lindem (acee)
mailto:a...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hi Robert,
From: Robert Raszuk mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>
Date: Thursday, November 10, 2022 at 9:41 AM
To: Peter Psenak
mailto:40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>>
Cc: Bruno Decraene
mailto:bru
Hi Robert,
From: Robert Raszuk
Date: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 10:37 AM
To: Acee Lindem , lsr
Subject: OSPF-GT
Hi Acee,
The point of sparse GT makes it much more attractive.
With that I have two questions/suggestions to make it even more useful.
#1 Would you consider adding reflection
Hi Robert,
From: Robert Raszuk
Date: Thursday, November 10, 2022 at 9:41 AM
To: Peter Psenak
Cc: Bruno Decraene , David Lamparter
, Acee Lindem , "lsr@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce / UPA IS-IS
semantics
Peter,
> But:
> - that is nonetheless a
Speaking as WG Participant:
Hi Bruno, David,
I guess I'd like to understand what one would accomplish with further
specification of prefix reachable? What
requirement would this satisfy? For the use case UPA is designed to handle
(triggering BGP PIC or other local
action) , I can't see that
801 - 830 of 830 matches
Mail list logo
