Re: [Lsr] Comments on draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo-07

2024-03-22 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
not work. Thanx for the good discussion. Les From: Dongjie (Jimmy) Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 6:32 PM To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) ; Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org; draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo.auth...@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Lsr] Comments on draft-zhu-lsr

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast Property advertisement for OSPFv2" - draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag-06

2024-03-22 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
for a node on the repair path because forwarding of packets to that address could be sent towards multiple nodes. Les From: Robert Raszuk Sent: Friday, March 22, 2024 7:33 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Cc: Acee Lindem ; lsr ; draft-chen-lsr-anycast-f...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast Property advertisement for OSPFv2" - draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag-06

2024-03-21 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
I support adoption of this draft. Knowledge of whether a given prefix is Anycast has proven useful in existing deployments - closing this gap for OSPFv2 is a good thing to do. One editorial comment. The introduction (and abstract) states: " Both SR-MPLS prefix-SID and IPv4 prefix may be

Re: [Lsr] Comments on draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo-07

2024-03-20 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Jie – Inline. From: Dongjie (Jimmy) Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 6:35 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org; draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo.auth...@ietf.org Subject: RE: Comments on draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo-07 Hi Les, Thanks for providing your opinion with an example

Re: [Lsr] Comments on draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo-07

2024-03-20 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
4 4:30 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org; draft-zhu-lsr- > isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo.auth...@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Comments on draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo-07 > > Hi Les, > > Thanks for the review and comments. > > Please see some replies i

[Lsr] Comments on draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo-07

2024-03-20 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
This draft discusses how to use flex-algo in support of Network Resource Partitions (NRPs). In particular, it proposes to use a combination of L3 links and L2 Bundle member links as the topology associated with a given NRP. In those cases where an L3 link is using an L2 bundle and individual

Re: [Lsr] Intra-domain SAVNET method - draft-lin-savnet-lsr-intra-domain-method-03

2024-03-19 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
+1 The problem can be solved - and in a much more robust way than what is proposed in the draft - without any protocol extensions. There is no reason for this draft. Les > -Original Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 12:50 PM > To:

Re: [Lsr] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-07

2024-03-15 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Bruno - Inline. > -Original Message- > From: bruno.decra...@orange.com > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 11:17 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Barry Leiba > > Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org; > lsr@ietf.org; > sec..

Re: [Lsr] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-07

2024-03-15 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Bruno/Barry - In regards to: > > — Section 4.4 — > > >> Length: Indicates the length in octets (1-8) of the Value field. The >> length SHOULD be the minimum required to send all bits that are set. > > > > The SHOULD seems very odd: what would be a good reason to make it > longer than

Re: [Lsr] WGAdoptionCall-draft-gong-lsr-ospf-unreachable-link(02/23/24 - 03/08/24)

2024-03-14 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
; Yingzhen Qu ; Christian Hopps Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; jie.d...@huawei.com; AceeLindem ; Gyan Mishra ; lsr ; lsr-chairs ; ketan Talaulikar Subject: Re:Re: [Lsr] WGAdoptionCall-draft-gong-lsr-ospf-unreachable-link(02/23/24 - 03/08/24) Hi All, Sincerely appreciate all your remainder

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call-draft-gong-lsr-ospf-unreachable-link(02/23/24 - 03/08/24)

2024-03-12 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Or – if the authors want to consider my comments – replace “unreachable” in the name with something more apt – perhaps: “lsr-ospf-max-link-metric”  Les From: Lsr On Behalf Of Yingzhen Qu Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 1:11 PM To: Liyan Gong Cc: jie.d...@huawei.com; Acee Lindem ; Gyan

Re: [Lsr] bunch comments on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-admin-tags

2024-03-04 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Acee - Sorry, for some reason I thought you had copied the RFC5130 text verbatim - but I see that is not the case. Apologies for the noise. Les > -Original Message- > From: Acee Lindem > Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 12:56 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc:

Re: [Lsr] bunch comments on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-admin-tags

2024-03-04 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
are not convinced, so be it - we have lived with the lax language in RFC 5130 for years. But some things may not be working because of that. Les > -Original Message- > From: Acee Lindem > Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 12:12 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: Tony P

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-07

2024-03-03 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
I also support publication of this document. The functionality defined herein adds valuable flexibility to the way Flex Topologies can be defined. Although I have not reviewed Acee’s comments exhaustively, I agree with the points he is making and would like to see an updated version of the

Re: [Lsr] bunch comments on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-admin-tags

2024-03-03 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2024 10:27 AM > To: Tony Przygienda > Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr > Subject: Re: [Lsr] bunch comments on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft- > ietf-lsr-ospf-admin-tags > > At the risk of complication, I've added text to clarify the o

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-gong-lsr-ospf-unreachable-link (02/23/24 - 03/08/24)

2024-03-03 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
I support WG adoption of this draft. Being able to advertise a link that is not used in the base SPF is a useful functionality to have. I do think that the language currently used in the draft could be improved. Currently the draft says: “there are requirements to advertise unreachable links

Re: [Lsr] bunch comments on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-admin-tags

2024-02-29 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Tony – In the spirit of a friendly discussion… From: Lsr On Behalf Of Tony Przygienda Sent: Thursday, February 29, 2024 10:33 AM To: Acee Lindem Cc: lsr Subject: Re: [Lsr] bunch comments on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-admin-tags 1. you can easily rectify by saying,

Re: [Lsr] [Tsv-art] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-06

2024-02-08 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Mirja - Please see inline. LES2: > -Original Message- > From: Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) > Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 5:11 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: tsv-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding@ietf.org; > lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [

Re: [Lsr] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-06

2024-02-05 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
In regards to "operation on a LAN interface", > > > Section 6.2.1.2: > > “f no PSNPs have been generated on the LAN for a suitable period of time, > then an LSP transmitter can safely set the number of un-acknowledged LSPs to > zero. > > Since this suitable period of time is much higher

Re: [Lsr] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-06

2024-02-05 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Mirja - In regards to Section 6.3... > > Sec 6.3 > This section is entirely not clear to me. There is no algorithm described and > I > would not know how to implement this. [LES:] This is intentional. As this approach is NOT dependent on any signaling from the receiver, the transmitter is

Re: [Lsr] AD review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-05

2024-02-01 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
ginal Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem > Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2024 9:42 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET ; John > Scudder ; lsr ; Tony Li ; > gsoli...@protonmail.com; Antoni Przygienda ; Gunter van > de Velde (Nokia) ; Mare

Re: [Lsr] AD review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-05

2024-02-01 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Acee - > > --- > > //Acee > > > > A bigger issue from that historical artifact is that some text refers to > > "LSP > Burst Window" when they should refer to the "new" (from -01) "Receive > Window sub-TLV". That's a bigger issue as "in letter" this may be seen as > technical change (even if "in

Re: [Lsr] [Teas] Fwd: Working Group Last Call for "Applicability of IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Network Resource Partition (NRP)" - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-06

2024-01-20 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
draft. Fair enough. But this is an issue of significance and needs to be openly discussed – though not in the context of this thread.) Les From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Sent: Friday, January 19, 2024 11:37 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Acee Lindem Cc: Chongfeng Xie ; TEAS WG ; lsr

Re: [Lsr] [Teas] Fwd: Working Group Last Call for "Applicability of IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Network Resource Partition (NRP)" - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-06

2024-01-19 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
scussion of the larger > questions - not just the one sentence. > > No - I have not seen your shepherd writeup - it does not seem to be visible on > the document status page. > >Les > > > > -Original Message----- > > From: Acee Lindem mailt

Re: [Lsr] [Teas] Fwd: Working Group Last Call for "Applicability of IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Network Resource Partition (NRP)" - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-06

2024-01-19 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
status page. Les > -Original Message- > From: Acee Lindem > Sent: Friday, January 19, 2024 11:05 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: Chongfeng Xie ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > ; jmh ; TEAS WG > ; lsr > Subject: Re: [Lsr] [Teas] Fwd: Working Group Last

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-wang-lsr-stub-link-attributes (01/05/2024 - 01/19/2024)

2024-01-18 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
when trying to have a frank exchange of views on the technical points of a draft. I am unlikely to respond further after this – but please find some responses inline. See [LES2:]. From: Aijun Wang Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2024 1:29 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Cc: 'Christian Hopps

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-wang-lsr-stub-link-attributes (01/05/2024 - 01/19/2024)

2024-01-17 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Aijun - From: Aijun Wang Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 10:56 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Cc: Christian Hopps ; Huzhibo ; Acee Lindem ; Yingzhen Qu ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-wang-lsr-stub-link-attributes (01/05/2024 - 01/19/2024) Hi, Les: Let’s keep

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-wang-lsr-stub-link-attributes (01/05/2024 - 01/19/2024)

2024-01-16 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Aijun – Please see inline. From: Aijun Wang Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 12:18 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; 'Christian Hopps' ; 'Huzhibo' Cc: 'Acee Lindem' ; 'Yingzhen Qu' ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: 答复: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-wang-lsr-stub-link-attributes (01/05/2024 - 01/19

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-wang-lsr-stub-link-attributes (01/05/2024 - 01/19/2024)

2024-01-15 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
I respect that individuals may have different opinions - but it is important to distinguish what is factual from what is not. Opinions based upon false information are clearly compromised. Please do heed Chris's (as WG chair) admonition to review the first WG adoption thread. That will reveal

Re: [Lsr] [Teas] Fwd: Working Group Last Call for "Applicability of IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Network Resource Partition (NRP)" - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-06

2024-01-10 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
, 2024 7:41 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; jmh ; Acee Lindem ; TEAS WG ; lsr Subject: Re: [Lsr] [Teas] Fwd: Working Group Last Call for "Applicability of IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Network Resource Partition (NRP)" - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-06 Hi Le

Re: [Lsr] [Teas] Fwd: Working Group Last Call for "Applicability of IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Network Resource Partition (NRP)" - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-06

2024-01-10 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
(NOTE: I am replying to Joel’s post rather than the original last call email because I share some of Joel’s concerns – though my opinion on the merits of the draft is very different. Also, I want to be sure the TEAS WG gets to see this email.) I oppose Last Call for

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-wang-lsr-stub-link-attributes (01/05/2024 - 01/19/2024)

2024-01-08 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
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

Re: [Lsr] RFC8665

2023-12-13 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
ickly found. Les > -Original Message- > From: tom petch > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 9:34 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr-cha...@ietf.org > Cc: lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: RFC8665 > > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Sent: 11 December 2023 16:4

Re: [Lsr] RFC8665

2023-12-11 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Tom - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8665/ And there is a link to it here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ospf/documents/ Not sure why you are having issues. Les > -Original Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of tom petch > Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 4:02 AM > To:

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023)

2023-12-09 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
s a reason to reread the thread and try to figure out why you have incorrectly concluded that Parag and I are not in agreement - or you won't. That is totally your decision. Les From: Huaimo Chen Sent: Saturday, December 9, 2023 6:06 AM To: Parag Kaneriya ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; li_zhenqi...@h

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023)

2023-12-08 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
amically as sub-TLVs are added/removed. Deploying something that at best works some of the time is certain to lead to big problems. Our responsibility is to define robust solutions. Les From: Parag Kaneriya Sent: Friday, December 8, 2023 8:29 AM To: Huaimo Chen ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; li_zhenqi.

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023)

2023-12-08 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
. Les From: Huaimo Chen Sent: Friday, December 8, 2023 5:46 AM To: Tony Przygienda Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com; Tony Li ; Linda Dunbar ; Yingzhen Qu ; draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-...@ietf.org; lsr Subject: RE: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023)

2023-12-07 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Gyan> If we made the sending of MP TLV a MUST it would provide the similar type of backwards compatibility as BIG TLV with the capability TLV. Advantage of doing it inside the protocol is that we eliminate configuration of enable/disable state default variations and are able to ensue

Re: [Lsr] Bug in RFC 8667 definition of SID/Index/Label

2023-12-07 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
m: John Scudder > Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 1:13 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: Acee Lindem ; Hannes Gredler > ; stefano.prev...@gmail.com; Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) > ; abashandy.i...@gmail.com; han...@rtbrick.com; > DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET ; > slitkows.i.

Re: [Lsr] Bug in RFC 8667 definition of SID/Index/Label

2023-12-07 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
; From: Acee Lindem > Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 12:44 PM > To: John Scudder > Cc: Hannes Gredler ; > stefano.prev...@gmail.com; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; > Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) ; abashandy.i...@gmail.com; > han...@rtbrick.com; DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET > ; sl

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023)

2023-12-07 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
that I can declare it “backwards compatible”. By that definition everything is “backwards compatible”. This makes the term “backwards compatibility” meaningless. This POV is neither useful nor sensible. Les From: Huaimo Chen Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 6:07 AM To: Les Ginsberg

Re: [Lsr] Bug in RFC 8667 definition of SID/Index/Label

2023-12-06 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
change/clarification is needed? Les > -Original Message- > From: John Scudder > Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 1:13 PM > To: stefano.prev...@gmail.com; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > ; Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) ; > abashandy.i...@gmail.com; han...@rtbrick.c

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023)

2023-12-04 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
advertisement to determine when it is safe to use the advertisements. Les From: li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 10:35 PM To: Huaimo Chen ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Tony Li ; Linda Dunbar Cc: Yingzhen Qu ; draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-...@ietf.org; lsr Subject: Re: Re

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023)

2023-12-01 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Linda – When we have polarized positions (for whatever reasons), coming to consensus is often difficult. Each side tends to dismiss the arguments of the other – sometimes regardless of merit. So, maybe the following won’t help – but I am going to give it a try. Point #1: There are existing

Re: [Lsr] IETF 118 LSR Minutes

2023-11-28 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
, 2023 11:24 PM To: Acee Lindem Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Yingzhen Qu ; lsr ; lsr-chairs Subject: Re: [Lsr] IETF 118 LSR Minutes 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

Re: [Lsr] IETF 118 LSR Minutes

2023-11-26 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
FWIW – The new format for the chatlog is much less readable than previous. Here is the format from IETF 116: Ketan Talaulikar 00:39:39 There is a WG draft for per-algo adj-sid : https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-algorithm-related-adjacency-sid/ If we have large number of links,

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-xu-lsr-flooding-reduction-in-clos-01.txt

2023-11-24 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Xiaohu – I also point out that there are at least two existing drafts which specifically address IS-IS flooding reduction in CLOS networks and do so in greater detail and with more robustness than what is in your draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-distoptflood/

Re: [Lsr] draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv

2023-11-24 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Bruno – You began your comments in the context of the adoption thread (Subject: RE: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023)). I note that you subsequently started a new thread with new (Subject: draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv). But as the new thread

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023)

2023-11-24 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Huaimo - Every statement you make below is false. These points have been discussed - in WG meetings, on the mailing list, and in private conversations. But you persist in repeating false claims. This is not helpful. You are, of course, entitled to have whatever opinion you choose regarding MP

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023)

2023-11-21 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Bruno - First, without dismissing your comments, this is a WG adoption call - not a Last Call to publish a draft as an RFC (as Tony has pointed out). Could you state unambiguously whether you support adoption or not? I am in agreement with Tony's responses. I think my earlier reply to you is

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "Prefix Flag Extension for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3" - draft-chen-lsr-prefix-extended-flags-03 (Corrected End Date)

2023-11-19 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
I support adoption of this draft. It is a reasonable (and well proven) solution to a real world problem. Les > -Original Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem > Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 8:02 AM > To: Lsr > Cc: draft-chen-lsr-prefix-extended-fl...@ietf.org > Subject:

Re: [Lsr] Question on draft-qgp-lsr-isis-pics-yang

2023-11-18 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Lindem Cc: DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Loa Andersson ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] Question on draft-qgp-lsr-isis-pics-yang Hi, About the name, here are some suggestions about the module name and prefix: * ietf-isis-feature-support.yang, isis-fs (YANG Module

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023)

2023-11-17 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
+2 support adoption as coauthor (Chairs – is it really necessary for the authors to express support for their own draft? ) Les From: Tony Przygienda Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 10:29 AM To: Tony Li Cc: Yingzhen Qu ; draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-...@ietf.org; lsr Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG

Re: [Lsr] IPR Poll for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv

2023-11-17 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft" Les From: Yingzhen Qu Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 9:01 AM To: draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-...@ietf.org; lsr Cc: lsr-chairs Subject: IPR Poll for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv Hi, This is an IPR call for

Re: [Lsr] Question on draft-qgp-lsr-isis-pics-yang

2023-11-16 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Acee – Thanx for the comments – inline. From: Acee Lindem Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 2:33 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Cc: Loa Andersson ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] Question on draft-qgp-lsr-isis-pics-yang Speaking as a WG contributor: Hi Les, I think a simpler name is better

Re: [Lsr] Question on draft-qgp-lsr-isis-pics-yang

2023-11-16 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Loa - I agree with you that simply "IS-IS Support" may not be the best choice. Although, the meeting minutes have not yet been posted, as I recall my response to Tony Li's suggestion of "IS-IS Support" was "Yes - something like that." The draft authors have not yet discussed this - but we will

Re: [Lsr] draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv and "backwards compatibility"

2023-11-16 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Bruno – Thanx for the thoughtful comments. Please see responses inline. From: bruno.decra...@orange.com Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 6:40 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Christian Hopps Cc: lsr@ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv and "backwards compatibility"

Re: [Lsr] Technical questions for draft about unreachable prefixes announcement

2023-11-07 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Ketan – I am very happy to be wrong in this case.  We are in full agreement. Les From: Lsr On Behalf Of Ketan Talaulikar Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 11:52 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Cc: John Drake ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) ; Aijun Wang ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] Technical

Re: [Lsr] Technical questions for draft about unreachable prefixes announcement

2023-11-06 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
To add to what Ketan has stated… draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement defines the same mechanism for both OSPF and IS-IS i.e., it proposes to use a prefix-originator sub-TLV with address set to 0.0.0.0 to indicate unreachability. For OSPF, this might be considered compatible with RFC

Re: [Lsr] draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv and "backwards compatibility"

2023-11-06 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Hopps > Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 6:10 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: Christian Hopps ; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv and "backwards compatibility" > > > My point is that people are not using the same definition of b

[Lsr] draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv and "backwards compatibility"

2023-11-06 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Chris (and everyone) - A more complete response to your comments regarding "backwards compatibility", routing loops, etc. It is absolutely true that until all nodes in the network support advertisement (meaning at least receive processing) of more than 255 bytes for a given object, that

Re: [Lsr] draft-chen-lsr-isis-big-tlv

2023-11-05 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
, November 5, 2023 3:06 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-chen-lsr-isis-big-tlv Hi Les, Thank you very much for your responses. draft-chen-lsr-isis-big-tlv resolves the issue: unpredictable behavior with partial deployment, which are stated in both IETF 117 and IETF

Re: [Lsr] draft-chen-lsr-isis-big-tlv

2023-11-05 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Huaimo - Thanx for bringing this up. Resolving this before the meeting hopefully will save us time during the meeting. "Backwards compatibility" is possible in situations where new advertisements are being introduced and the legacy nodes either: * Don't need to process the new

Re: [Lsr] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-liu-lsr-igp-mpd-00.txt

2023-10-14 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Yao – A few comments… While I appreciate that the limits you are defining are different than any of the limits currently supported by the IGP MSD-Types registry, I think they still fall conceptually into the same generic bucket i.e., you want to advertise a limit related to a type of packet

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-04

2023-08-31 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Acee - From: Acee Lindem Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 10:33 AM To: Acee Lindem Cc: lsr ; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flood...@ietf.org Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-04 I support publication. I’ve done the shepherds review

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04

2023-08-31 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Les Thanks Zhibo Les > > Thanks > > Zhibo Hu > > > -Original Message- > > From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg > > (ginsberg) > > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 12:31 AM > > To: Peter Ps

Re: [Lsr] 答复: Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04

2023-08-30 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
. If rereading is of no help – please ask someone else to explain it to you – I do not know how to state things more clearly than I have. Respectfully, Les From: Lsr On Behalf Of Aijun Wang Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 8:37 PM To: 'Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)' ; 'Huzhibo' ; Peter Psenak

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04

2023-08-30 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Zhibo - Please see inline. > -Original Message- > From: Huzhibo > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 6:33 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) > ; linchangwang ; > Acee Lindem ; lsr > Cc: draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-annou...@ie

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04

2023-08-30 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Changwang - It is very important to note ... > > 2. The Draft #1 utilizes the existing mechanisms [RFC7794] and [RFC9084] to > indicate reachability by checking whether the originator information is > >NULL. This statement is incorrect. There is no existing mechanism defined in the

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-liu-lsr-mpls-inspection-msd-01.txt

2023-08-29 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
that needs to be made explicit (as RFC 9088 did) and some explanation as to “why” should be included in the draft. Les From: Tony Li On Behalf Of Tony Li Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 7:15 AM To: liu.ya...@zte.com.cn Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; mpls ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] New

Re: [Lsr] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-liu-lsr-mpls-inspection-msd-01.txt

2023-08-28 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Yao – Both RFC 8476(OSPF) and RFC 8491(IS-IS) define MSD advertisements with per-link scope and per-node scope. Your draft only states: “If a router has multiple interfaces with different capabilities of reading the maximum label stack depth, the router MUST advertise the smallest value

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04 (Fixed draft name)

2023-08-23 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
I support WG adoption. The problem is a useful problem to solve and the solution defined in the document has been implemented and proven to work. Les > -Original Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 1:07 PM > To: lsr > Cc:

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call IPR Poll for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-04

2023-07-19 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR. Les From: Acee Lindem Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 4:20 PM To: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flood...@ietf.org Cc: lsr Subject: WG Last Call IPR Poll for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-04 Authors, A cornucopia of IPR

Re: [Lsr] Andrew Alston's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-03: (with COMMENT)

2023-05-25 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Andrew - Thanx for the review. S-bit is dataplane independent because it is applicable to both SR-MPLS and SRv6. Les > -Original Message- > From: Andrew Alston via Datatracker > Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2023 6:09 AM > To: The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919...@ietf.org;

Re: [Lsr] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis-04: (with COMMENT)

2023-05-25 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Rob - Thanx for the review. Yes, the update to the Introduction was done in response to Warren's comment. Some offline discussion resulted in adding this to the Introduction rather than the Abstract. Les > -Original Message- > From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker > Sent: Thursday,

Re: [Lsr] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis-04: (with COMMENT)

2023-05-25 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Lars - Thanx for the review. Responses inline - though I have to say your section references are a "little bit off" - not sure why. > -Original Message- > From: Lars Eggert via Datatracker > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 11:24 PM > To: The IESG > Cc:

Re: [Lsr] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis-03

2023-05-23 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Scott - Thanx for your review. I have uploaded V4 of the draft with the change you suggested. Les > -Original Message- > From: Scott Kelly via Datatracker > Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 9:12 AM > To: sec...@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org;

Re: [Lsr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-02: (with COMMENT)

2023-05-19 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Done and posted new versions for both 8919bis and 8920bis. Les From: John Scudder Sent: Friday, May 19, 2023 7:41 AM To: Warren Kumari Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; The IESG ; draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; cho...@chopps.org Subject: Re: Warren

Re: [Lsr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-02: (with COMMENT)

2023-05-18 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Warren - Thanx for the thoughtful (and entertaining ) review. I have no objection to adding a forward reference to the "changes" section for both this document and draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis. My only concern is whether this violates the guideline that the "abstract should be complete in

Re: [Lsr] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-01

2023-05-10 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Watson - Where are we with this discission? Have my responses clarified things sufficiently or do you still have unresolved issues? Thanx. Les > -Original Message- > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Sent: Friday, May 5, 2023 4:54 PM > To: Watson Ladd > Cc: secdir ;

Re: [Lsr] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-01

2023-05-09 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
age- > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 1:00 PM > To: Robert Sparks ; John Scudder > > Cc: gen-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis@ietf.org; > last-c...@ietf.org; > lsr@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-

Re: [Lsr] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-01

2023-05-05 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Watson - Please see LES2: inline. > -Original Message- > From: Watson Ladd > Sent: Friday, May 5, 2023 3:32 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: secdir ; draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis@ietf.org; last- > c...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Secdir last call

Re: [Lsr] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-01

2023-05-04 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Watson - Before responding to your comments, I point out that this is a bis of RFC 8919 - and it makes no changes to the protocol extensions defined in RFC 8919 - it only provides some clarifications so that readers/implementors are more likely to have a common understanding. The Security

Re: [Lsr] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-01

2023-05-04 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Joseph - Thanx for your review. Les > -Original Message- > From: Joseph Yee via Datatracker > Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2023 8:35 PM > To: a...@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Artart last call review of

Re: [Lsr] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-01

2023-05-03 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> -Original Message- > From: Robert Sparks > Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 11:18 AM > To: John Scudder ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > > Cc: gen-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis@ietf.org; > last-c...@ietf.org; > lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Genart last call review of d

Re: [Lsr] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-01

2023-05-03 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Robert - Thanx for your review - apologies for the delay in responding. Please see inline. > -Original Message- > From: Robert Sparks via Datatracker > Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 1:09 PM > To: gen-...@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org;

Re: [Lsr] Last Call: (IS-IS Application-Specific Link Attributes) to Proposed Standard

2023-04-21 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Tom - I have submitted V1 to address all of the comments from you that I deemed possible/desirable to do. Please see responses inline as to the unaddressed issues. > -Original Message- > From: tom petch > Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 4:55 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ;

Re: [Lsr] Last Call: (IS-IS Application-Specific Link Attributes) to Proposed Standard

2023-04-20 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Tom - https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml At the very top it says: "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" Les > -Original Message- > From: tom petch > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 9:05 AM > To: John Scudder > Cc: cho...@chopps.org;

Re: [Lsr] Last Call: (IS-IS Application-Specific Link Attributes) to Proposed Standard

2023-04-20 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Tom - Thanx for catching this. John - will correct this in the next version. Also to John - if you have provided a review of the bis draft (as you suggest below) I don’t seem to have seen it. Did you send it to the list?? Or are you referring to your comments from last year which resulted in

Re: [Lsr] IETF-116 LSR - IGP extensions for Advertising Offset for Flex-Algorithm

2023-04-14 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
y detailed in the draft. Otherwise, casual readers will think that nothing is lost when the encoding efficiency is used. This isn’t a minor point in my view. Les > -Original Message- > From: Louis Chan > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 11:21 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)

Re: [Lsr] IETF-116 LSR - IGP extensions for Advertising Offset for Flex-Algorithm

2023-04-13 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
for the useful discussion. Les > -Original Message- > From: Louis Chan > Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 8:45 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Acee Lindem > > Cc: lsr ; Krzysztof Szarkowicz ; > Weiqiang Cheng > Subject: RE: [Lsr] IETF-116 LSR - IGP extension

Re: [Lsr] IETF-116 LSR - IGP extensions for Advertising Offset for Flex-Algorithm

2023-04-12 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Louis – I am having increasing difficulty in correlating what you say in this thread and what is actually written in the draft. Please see responses inline. Look for LES2: From: Louis Chan Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 7:46 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Acee Lindem Cc: lsr ; Krzysztof

Re: [Lsr] IETF-116 LSR - IGP extensions for Advertising Offset for Flex-Algorithm

2023-04-11 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Louis - Please see inline. > -Original Message- > From: Louis Chan > Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 11:01 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Acee Lindem > > Cc: lsr ; Krzysztof Szarkowicz ; > Weiqiang Cheng > Subject: RE: [Lsr] IETF-116 LSR - IGP ex

Re: [Lsr] IETF-116 LSR - IGP extensions for Advertising Offset for Flex-Algorithm

2023-04-07 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
OK - since Acee opened the door - here are some comments from me - starting with the most important. (BTW - I still have limited enthusiasm for this draft.) 1)The proposal places some restrictions on how operators provision their network in terms of assigning SIDs and reserving space for

Re: [Lsr] NewVersionNotificationfordraft-cheng-ospf-adjacency-suppress-00.txt

2023-03-29 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
the restarting router before that router is ready to forward them. So long as whatever solution you come up with addresses that issue, then I am satisfied. Thanx. Les > -Original Message- > From: Acee Lindem > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 9:00 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)

Re: [Lsr] Comments on draft-chen-lsr-isis-big-tlv-00

2023-03-29 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Chris - > -Original Message- > From: Christian Hopps > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 11:40 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: Christian Hopps ; Huaimo Chen > ; draft-chen-lsr-isis-big-tlv.auth...@ietf.org; > lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Comments on dra

Re: [Lsr] Comments on draft-chen-lsr-isis-big-tlv-00

2023-03-29 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
ay, March 28, 2023 6:45 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Christian Hopps > > Cc: Huaimo Chen ; draft-chen-lsr-isis-big- > tlv.auth...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Lsr] Comments on draft-chen-lsr-isis-big-tlv-00 > > Les, all > > > From:

Re: [Lsr] NewVersionNotificationfordraft-cheng-ospf-adjacency-suppress-00.txt

2023-03-28 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
the updated Router LSA from the restarting router and the updated Router LSA on the neighbor there is still some risk. Les > -Original Message- > From: Acee Lindem > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 2:19 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: Liyan Gong ; Tony Przygienda &g

Re: [Lsr] Comments on draft-chen-lsr-isis-big-tlv-00

2023-03-28 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
tion, needs to be able to receive > >> > sub-TLVs 2,4,6,8,10 from A. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > There is no way that A can advertise all 10 sub-TLVs in a way which > >> > allows both B and C to correctly process the sub-TLVs th

Re: [Lsr] Comments on draft-chen-lsr-isis-big-tlv-00

2023-03-28 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
e said of any style.  > -Original Message- > From: Christian Hopps > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 7:27 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: Huaimo Chen ; draft-chen-lsr-isis-big- > tlv.auth...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Comments on draft-chen-l

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >