I am unaware of any IPR, apart from the one disclosed [1].
Regards,
Dhruv
BTW the WG adopted I-D [2] is already posted, but I wanted to make
sure that my response is archived on the list.
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3351/
[2]
Hi Peter,
Snipping to open points...
> > (1) Please use updated requirement language text as per RFC 8174, as you do
> > have a mix of upper-case and lower-case terms in your I-D.
> >
> >The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
> >NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your reply, snipping to points that need further discussion...
> What about:
>
> Segment Routing with the MPLS Data Plane relies on Interior Gateway
> Protocols (IGP) such as OSPFv2 [RFC8665] and OSPFv3 [RFC8666] to signal
> labels.
>
Much better.
> > (3) Section 4
> >
>
Hi Gyan,
As far as PCE is concerned, we have the inter-AS link information via
RFC 5316 and RFC 5392. Both of these include a section on PCE's BRPC
procedure for instance.
I see you have other use cases, but it would be good to highlight why
for the PCE use case the above is deficient.
Thanks!
Hi Aijun,
I am not particularly sold on the argument that the configuration
requirements of RFC 5316/RFC 5392 are especially burdensome.
A PCE relies on the TEDB which comprises nodes & links, and it makes
sense to have an inter-AS link represented as a "Link". Moreover,
these links are
Hi Chris,
I support adoption.
But I found the use of "version 1" in the title a bit weird. Every
time we add new features, we would have to name the I-Ds as version
2,3..; IMHO it would be distracting. Should we just name the features
instead, something like - "IS-IS YANG Model Augmentations for
Hi,
I went through the diff with RFC5316. The changes look good. Some
minor comments -
(1) Is it wise to use normative keywords MUST and SHOULD in the
appendix? The text is from section 3.1 but can it be reworded in the
appendix? Also wondering if other changes (IANA, nits) could be listed
or we
Hi Acee,
I am not aware of any other IPR that applies to this I-D.
Thanks!
Dhruv
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 10:07 PM Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> The following IPR has been filed for
> draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support:
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3351/
>
>
>
> Are you
Hi WG,
I support progressing this towards publication.
Some comments -
- The header and main body claim that 7 RFCs are being updated whereas the
abstract and introduction only cite two.
- It is good to add an informational reference for inclusive language in
the introduction -- may be
Hi Qin, John,
I have added my comments for two issues, please see inline (look for Dhruv:)
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 2:52 PM Qin Wu
wrote:
> Hi, John:
>
> Thanks for your valuable AD review. We have incorporate your comments into
> draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-10.
>
> Regarding
Hi,
I support WG LC. It is in good shape!
It might be a good idea to include some text (perhaps in the appendix) on
why a new LSA is used for SRv6 Locator LSA. Any reviewer and future reader
would wonder why this decison was made.
BTW, do expand LSA on first use.
Thanks!
Dhruv
On Fri, Jul 29,
Hi all,
I have incorporated changes suggested by Les and Acee in the working copy
maintained at -
TXT -
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-12.txt
DIFF -
Hi Robert,
Thanks for your review. The working copy is at -
TXT -
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-12.txt
DIFF -
; >
> >
> >
> > 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 <
&g
Hi Eric,
Thanks for your review. The working copy is at -
TXT - https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-
lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-12.txt
DIFF - https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-
Hi John,
Disclaimer is removed from working copy!
Thanks!
Dhruv
On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 11:51 PM John Scudder wrote:
> Silly me,
>
> > On Oct 5, 2022, at 2:17 PM, John Scudder wrote:
> >
> > see that warning from idnits pretty often too, I don’t know what
> triggers it,
>
> … it’s right
Hi Warren,
Thanks for your review. Apologies for making you sad (we definitely
don't want that :)! How about this text instead of removing ->
6. Management Considerations
Manageability considerations for PCE Discovery are addressed in
Section 4.10 of [RFC4674] and Section 9 of [RFC5088]
Hi Paul,
On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 6:35 AM Paul Wouters via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-12: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
Hi Carlos,
Thanks for your review!
On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 7:38 PM Carlos Pignataro via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> This document defines a mechanism (flags and sub-TLV) to advertise via the
> PCE
> Protocol security
Hi Acee/Les,
Seems to be a known issue, See
https://github.com/ietf-tools/datatracker/issues/5952
Perhaps we can comment there asking the tools team to prioritize its
resolution!
Thanks!
Dhruv
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 5:18 AM Acee Lindem wrote:
> Les -
> The LSR WG list is no place to vent on
Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
Review result: Has Issues
Subject: RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-08
Hello
I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc/
The routing directorate will, on request
Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
Review result: Has Issues
Subject: RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-09
Hello
I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc/
The routing directorate will, on request
Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
Review result: Has Issues
Hello,
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request
Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
Review result: Has Issues
Hello,
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request
24 matches
Mail list logo
