[Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-04 Shepherd review

Dear authors, I have done shepherd review of draft-ietf-ospf-lls-id-04 as requested by LSR chairs. I’d like to thank all authors for their contributions on this document, also people who have reviewed this document and provided valuable comments and discussions. The document is well written an

Re: [Lsr] [OPSAWG] [GROW] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt

Robin, Einar pointed exactly right points, very little to add. Let’s keep is-is (narrow) scope. 1. There’s operational state of the protocol - I don’t really see what’s missing in IETF/OpenConfig YANG models that would nessesarily require new work? Please be specific in your answers 2. What’s in

Re: [Lsr] [GROW] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00.txt

Randy, Is the OPS-NM Configuration Management Requirements (ops-nm) Bof from IETF 52 (10 December 2001) the meeting you were thinking of? There are also references to an IAB meeting in 2002 about the lack of use of SNMP for network configuration in

[Lsr] Comments on draft-hu-lsr-isis-path-mtu

(Changed the subject – was “RE: [Lsr] IETF 102 LSR Working Group Call for Agenda Items”) Zhibo – Following up on Acee’s comment…he is (of course) quite correct that there already is a per link MTU sub-TLV defined by RFC 7176 – it is sub-TLV 28 defined here: https://www.iana.org/assignments/is

Re: [Lsr] Comments on draft-hu-lsr-isis-path-mtu

Hi Les & Acee: Yes, I agree with you, we will merge ISIS & OSPF extensions for Path MTU, and isis will reference RFC 7176. Ths ZhiBo Hu From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 12:52 PM To: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Huzhibo ; lsr@ietf.org Cc: Dailongfei (