Hi,
Just a quick comment in last call for this draft.
Would it be a good idea to also give some steer to future documents?
Something like "It is intended that all future OSPF documents use this
revised terminology even when they reference the RFCs updated by this
document."
That could go in
Gredler
; JP Vasseur (jvasseur) ;
meral.shirazip...@polymtl.ca; Adrian Farrel
Subject: RE: [Lsr] Lars Eggert's Discuss on
draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
John -
So you are suggesting that Section 4 of the draft be modified to say:
"This introdu
irazip...@polymtl.ca; Adrian Farrel
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Lars Eggert's Discuss on
draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Hi Everyone,
+Adrian since he appears to have been the shepherd for RFC 5088, which is the
root of Lars’ DISCUSS.
+Hannes, Les, JP, Meral as
Chris, all,
I'm aware that the WG last call has gone by and I'd understand it if my
comments are therefore put on one side. But rather than wait for IETF last
call, I thought I'd ask now...
I checked the mailing list and couldn't find any discussion of this point so:
is there any reason why
,
Thanks a lot for your detailed review. All your comments and suggestions
look good and we will produce a new revision to incorporate them.
And please see replies to some points inline:
Best regards,
Jie
> -Original Message-
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk]
Hi LSR and draft authors,
I read this draft, and it seems to me that it provides a useful transitional
mechanism. It can obviously only support a relatively small number of VTNs
(128 due to the limited number of Flex-Algos the network devices can
support), but it looks to be a worthwhile first
s,
Huaimo on behalf of authors
From: Adrian Farrel mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk> >
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2021 3:34 PM
To: 'lsr' mailto:lsr@ietf.org> >
Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-...@ietf.org
<mailto:draft-ietf-lsr-isis-...@ietf.org> mailto:draft-ietf-lsr-isis-...@i
What you say it true, Tony.
Doesn’t mean I like it
A
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of Tony Li
Sent: 17 February 2021 17:55
To: Adrian Farrel
Cc: lsr ; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] A review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-ttz
Hi Adrian,
On Feb 13, 2021, at 12:34
Hi all,
Acee leant on me to do a review of this work (so blame him :-)
It's good to see this document adopted and progressing. Particularly
good to see the realistic compromise of making this Experimental.
I have a few comments, below.
Best,
Adrian
===
I have a largish issue with the fact
Hi again Gyan,
I think we’re narrowing down and getting somewhat esoteric for the mailing
lists we’re spamming.
> Similarly other use cases such as with TEAS TS-Transport slice and being able
> to provision TS and capturing the TS Enhanced VPN RT & resource information
> and leveraging
Hi Gyan,
Sorry, I missed this (got caught on a filter cos it was a bit spammed to a lot
of lists :-).
> I have noticed that after reviewing many drafts across many WGs it seems in
> the
> industry that the lines seem to be blurred between a PCE controller, ODL or
> Openflow SDN
Thanks Qin.
I skimmed the diff and this looks like a good step up. Thanks.
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Qin Wu
Sent: 03 September 2019 12:03
To: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-02.txt
The v-02 is posted to
Hi Qin,
I didn't see any response to this email, so I thought I should chip in with
some (old, old, old) memories and context.
tl;dr I am generally supportive of this work, but I think a little
fine-tuning is needed.
If I recall correctly, the situation when 5088 and 5089 were produced was
that
ow
MPLS packets run over, then an unwanted IP packet may send to this tunnel-end
IP/UDP, and the router can't filter the packet by MPLS label stack (is there
MPLS ACL?).
Thanks
Jingrong
-Original Message-
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 201
-
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 9:05 PM
To: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Status of draft-ietf-isis-encapsulation-cap
Nice response, Bruno.
Thanks.
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: b
Thanks Xiaohu,
That at least indicates that you would like to see an RFC published.
But I wonder whether the WG has given up on this work? Two years is a long time
to make no advances and to have no demands for publication.
I wonder why no one has cared in the interim.
Best,
Adrian
16 matches
Mail list logo
