Re: [Lsr] Inconsistence regarding the definition of "Adj-SID Sub-TLV" between OSPF and ISIS extension for Segment Routing

< including IDR WG where BGP-LS work is being done > Hi Aijun, As discussed offline, this is a bug in this particular implementation where it is not following the spec properly. This goes back to the discussion in the IDR WG about the semantic and syntactic validation for BGP-LS messages which

[Lsr] RFC 8362 on OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA) Extensibility

rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org Wed, 04 April 2018 04:08 UTCShow header A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 8362 Title: OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA

[Lsr] OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family MPLS Traffic Engineering Tunnels

Hi Anton, Alvaro, and Mike, In preparation for WG last call, I have a couple comments. 1. Have you considered a shorter name for the RFC? For example: “OSPF Cross Address Family Traffic Engineering Tunnels”? 2. Can you change the requirements language text to the RFC 8174 version? 3. I

Re: [Lsr] Inconsistence regarding the definition of "Adj-SID Sub-TLV" between OSPF and ISIS extension for Segment Routing

A strong +1 from me as well. This is a clear example where the functional content is the same, but differences exist in the encoding for reasons which are specific to each protocol. Les > -Original Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of Peter Psenak (ppsenak) > Sent: Tuesday, April 03,

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt

Well...this raises a topic on which I would like to have feedback from the WG. Combining IS-IS/OSPF into one working group is fine - no argument there. But, we now may be producing two classes of documents: 1)Documents which are specific to a protocol (IS-IS or OSPFv2 or OSPFv3) 2)Documents whic

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt

I don’t see the big deal in having the WG name in the draft title, even for category 1 documents. It’s only the name of the draft and the fact that it is protocol specific doesn’t really need to be called out at that level. People who read the document will certainly figure it out. Tony On Wed

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt

and, probably, this draft won't stay a draft long enough for the problem to have any sort of materialisation. s. On Wed, Apr 4, 2018, 10:03 PM Tony Li wrote: > > I don’t see the big deal in having the WG name in the draft title, even > for category 1 documents. > > It’s only the name of the

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt

Hi Les, I considered this as well. On 4/4/18, 3:39 PM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" wrote: Well...this raises a topic on which I would like to have feedback from the WG. Combining IS-IS/OSPF into one working group is fine - no argument there. But, we now may be producing two c

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt

I think the WG name should be in the expected place in the file name. I seem to remember some drafts with -bgp- rather than -idr- that flew under the radar for a while. Thanks, Acee From: Tony Li Date: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 4:03 PM To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" Cc: Acee Lindem , "lsr@iet

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt

+1 I’d think the below would work: lsr for #2 lsr-ospf(ospfv3) / lsr-isis for #1 Cheers, Jeff From: Lsr on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" Date: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 13:27 To: Tony Li , "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" Cc: "lsr@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notificat

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt

Fine with me. More important, I would like to fast track this bis document since the changes are so pointed and directly affect the probability of interoperable implementations. How quickly can we move to WG status? Can we do that even before the name change – so I can issue “ietf-lsr-isis-rfc