Re: [Lsr] LSR Working Last Call for draft-ietf-ospf-yang

Hi Tom, Thanks much Tom - I agree with your comments. See one inline. I will likely work on these prior to the end of the WG last call period. On 8/22/18, 11:41 AM, "tom petch" wrote: Original Message - From: "Jeff Tantsura" Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 9:14 PM

Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward

Agreed. Also for the relatively-long term solution, I doubt there is an one-size-fits-all solution. We need to have enough building blocks in protocols and any data center design/operation can utilize with to achieve their operational goal. Regards, - Naiming On Aug 22, 2018, at 5:22 PM, Dean

Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward

Yes – there are improvements desired (e.g., flooding reduction) for DC environment but also beneficial in general; but there may require scenario specific solutions (optional & pluggable?). Dean From: Naiming Shen (naiming) [mailto:naim...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 5:42 PM To:

Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward

This two-approach approach makes sense, since it tends to provide a solution in a short term but also lay out a foundation for the relatively-long term. And hopefully some elements deployed in the short term can be leveraged and further tuned for the long term solution. Dean From: Lsr

[Lsr] WG Adoption IPR Poll for "Restart Signaling for IS-IS" - draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc5306bis-01

Les, Paul, Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc5306bis-01? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this email

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Restart Signaling for IS-IS" - draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc5306bis-01

Support the adoption. Thanks Mankamana From: Lsr on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" Date: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 6:42 AM To: "lsr@ietf.org" Subject: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Restart Signaling for IS-IS" - draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc5306bis-01 This draft has been presented several

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Restart Signaling for IS-IS" - draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc5306bis-01

Support the adoption. Regards, Andrew Sent from my iPhone Outlook From: Lsr on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 9:42:34 PM To: lsr@ietf.org Subject: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Restart Signaling for IS-IS"

Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward

Les, Not going to repeat Tony P. points, however I don’t think anyone said – requirement document should be a gating factor,  personally, I’d do it same way we did in RTGWG – to have a unbiased reference point others can reference to. Development of such document should go in parallel with

Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward

It is better to have some short discussions about the requirements. Some requirements were presented and discussed in RTGWG. With some new additions and discussions , we should have a good set of requirements. Best Regards, Huaimo From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Naiming

Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward

Naiming, That’s would be the goal, not to boil the ocean (again)the constrain part would be “improvements on existing protocols”, since we are in LSR, perhaps further scoped to ISIS/OSPF. Cheers, Jeff From: "Naiming Shen (naiming)" Date: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 12:19 To: "Les

Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward

Works for me. Thanx Jeff. Les From: Jeff Tantsura Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 1:21 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Tony Przygienda Cc: Tony Li ; lsr@ietf.org; Acee Lindem (acee) Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward Les, Not going to repeat Tony P.

Re: [Lsr] LSR Working Last Call for draft-ietf-ospf-yang

Original Message - From: "Jeff Tantsura" Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 9:14 PM Acee, The draft is in good shape, support. Mmm that sounds like a good challenge. I had a quick look and noticed: - NMDA gets discussed in s.2.1; I like to see support for it mentioned earlier, in

Re: [Lsr] LSR Working Last Call for draft-ietf-ospf-yang

Tom, Many thanks, great comments (as always)! Regards, Jeff > On Aug 22, 2018, at 08:41, tom petch wrote: > > Original Message - > From: "Jeff Tantsura" > Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 9:14 PM > > Acee, > > The draft is in good shape, support. > > > > Mmm that sounds like a

Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward

> At IETF 102, there was no dearth of flooding reduction proposals. In fact, > we have so many proposals that there wasn’t agree as how to move forward and > we agreed to discuss on the list. This Email is to initiate that discussion > (which I intend to participate in but as a WG member).

Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward

+1 Tony We could start with a document, similar to dc-routing requirements one we did in RTGWG before chartering RIFT and LSVR. Would help to disambiguate requirements from claims and have apple to apple comparison. Doing it on github was a good experience. Regards, Jeff > On Aug 22, 2018,

Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward

In the discussions which led to the creation of LSVR and RIFT WGs, considerable interest was expressed in working on enhancements to existing Link State protocols. You can peruse the dcrouting mailing list archives. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dcrouting/ It is rather befuddling to

Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward

I do think it is a good idea in a sense to somehow outline WHAT problem is being solved via some write-down or mind-melt a) I hope it's captured in the meeting notes but otherwise running the danger of repeating myself, the problem splits along the line of "directed graphs" (basically lattices)