Hi Yaron,
thanks for your comments, please see inline:
On 04/11/18 16:38 , Yaron Sheffer wrote:
Reviewer: Yaron Sheffer
Review result: Has Nits
Summary: document has non-security related nits.
Details
* The definition of "segment" is different here from the one used in the
architecture
Authors and Contributors,
Please confirm that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full
conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed.
If not, explain why? Each author/contributor should respond explicitly to this
list.
Thanks,
Acee
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.
Title : OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing
Authors : Peter Psenak
Stefano Previdi
I’m not aware of any IPR associated with this document.
Dean
> On Nov 5, 2018, at 4:36 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>
> Authors and Contributors,
>
> Please confirm that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full
> conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
Acee Lindem has requested publication of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-02 as
Proposed Standard on behalf of the LSR working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis/
___
Lsr mailing
Per the WG meeting, discussing on the list:
This is good work and I support it.
I would remind folks that TCP is NOT the only transport protocol available and
that perhaps we should be considering QUIC while we’re at it. In particular,
flooding is a (relatively) low bandwidth operation in
Thanks, Tony.
We picked TCP because every router on the planet already has a TCP stack
in it.
That made it the obvious choice.
Our draft described a TVL in the IIHs to indicate a router's
ability to use TCP for flooding.
That TLV has several sub-TVLs.
1) the TCP port-number
2) an IPv4
On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 10:51:33AM +0700, tony...@tony.li wrote:
>
> Per the WG meeting, discussing on the list:
>
> This is good work and I support it.
Ditto.
> I would remind folks that TCP is NOT the only transport protocol available
> and that perhaps we should be considering QUIC while
