Re: [Lsr] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd.txt

2018-05-07 Thread Jeff Tantsura
;, <ospf-cha...@ietf.org>, <lsr@ietf.org> Cc: <rtg-...@ietf.org>, <rtg-...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd.txt Resent-From: <alias-boun...@ietf.org> Resent-To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com>, <uma.ch

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Last Call for "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using OSPF" - draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-10.txt

2018-05-07 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Hi Ketan, New version (11) should address all your comments, please check and let me know. ISIS version is being aligned as we speak. Many thanks! Cheers, Jeff From: Lsr on behalf of "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" Date: Thursday, April 12,

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Last Call for "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using OSPF" - draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-10.txt

2018-05-10 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Hi Ketan, Many thanks for you thoughtful reviews, working with the authors to improve the draft! Cheers, Jeff From: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ket...@cisco.com> Date: Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 08:05 To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com>, "Acee Lind

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-11.txt

2018-05-15 Thread Jeff Tantsura
>> 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 : Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using IS-IS >>>

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00

2018-05-23 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Yes/support Regards, Jeff > On May 23, 2018, at 17:28, Christian Hopps wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > We're starting a 2 week WG Last Call on > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis/ > > Please raise any objections or comments before Jun 6th,

Re: [Lsr] LSR Working Group Last Call for "OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing" - draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-13

2018-05-23 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Support as co-author Regards, Jeff > On May 23, 2018, at 17:03, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > This begins an LSR WG last call for the subject draft. Please send your > comments to this list prior to 12:00 AM GMT, June 7th, 2018. > Thanks, > Acee and Chris > >

Re: [Lsr] IPR Poll for "OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing" Prior to WG Last Call

2018-05-22 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Acee, I’m no aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. Regards, Jeff > On May 22, 2018, at 16:43, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > Are you aware of any IPR that applies to > draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-12.txt? > > If so, has this IPR been disclosed in

Re: [Lsr] IPR Poll draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd.

2018-06-13 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Chris, I'm not aware of any IPR outside of that already disclosed. Thanks, Jeff Cheers, Jeff On 6/13/18, 06:37, "Christian Hopps" wrote: [Sigh, I quoted the wrong email and mixed things up -- thanks Bruno!] Authors, The original WGLC requested the authors indicate if

Re: [Lsr] [Idr] Signalling ERLD (ISIS, OSPF and BGP-LS)

2018-06-13 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Gunter, I have nothing to add to Les' comments, 100% agree. Cheers, Jeff On 6/13/18, 08:42, "Idr on behalf of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" wrote: Gunter - I strongly support Option #2 and strongly support Ketan's recommendation that an MSD sub-type be used to advertise ERLD.

Re: [Lsr] IPR Poll on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-16 (Shepherd write-up)

2018-06-11 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Uma, I’m not aware of any IPR that has not been previously disclosed. Cheers, Jeff From: Lsr on behalf of Uma Chunduri Date: Monday, June 11, 2018 at 12:18 To: Subject: [Lsr] IPR Poll on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-16 (Shepherd write-up) Dear All, Are you

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-16 - Shepherd review comments

2018-06-12 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Uma, Wrt number of authors, if I recall correctly (I don’t have pointers to the discussion anymore), given the lengths and involvement of the authors currently on the front page, as an exception - both ospf and isis sr drafts would keep the initial number of authors. Thanks, Jeff > On Jun

Re: [Lsr] IGP TE Metric Extensions

2018-05-31 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Muthu, LSR would be a more suitable list to post to, CCed. Regards, Jeff > On May 30, 2018, at 18:06, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal > wrote: > > Muthu ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd.txt

2018-04-29 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Hi Tal, Many thanks for your review! Coming week I’ll be working to address them as well as on earlier comments provided by Ketan. Should be done by the end of the week. Regards, Jeff > On Apr 29, 2018, at 04:08, Tal Mizrahi wrote: > > + LSR mailing list. > >

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

2018-07-03 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Robin, Pretty much same comment as Acee - I'm not clear as to why... Protocol YANG models developed in the last years clearly provide much better and more scalable approach to what has been proposed in the draft, since we are talking is-is - look at notifications in

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-05.txt

2018-08-03 Thread Jeff Tantsura
+1 Nothing really to add to Les’ comments Regards, Jeff > On Aug 3, 2018, at 09:32, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > wrote: > > Bruno – > > I appreciate why you suggest per-prefix signaling for ELC, but I would prefer > that we not employ that model. > > ELC is clearly a node capability –

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-05.txt

2018-08-08 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Stephane, Leaving protocol semantics aside – do you see a real use cases for multi-area/multi-protocol scenarios? For all practical reasons (and to repeat Gunter’s comments) – this info is really of value for the controller, from distribution prospective, source->BGP-LS speaker,

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-13

2018-08-15 Thread Jeff Tantsura
rg" , Christian Hopps Subject: RE: AD Review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-13 Resent-From: Resent-To: Jeff Tantsura , , , Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 15:51:43 -0700 (PDT) Alvaro – A very thorough review – thanx. Jeff has the pen – but I think he is on holiday at the

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-15

2018-08-20 Thread Jeff Tantsura
:53 To: Cc: , , "Acee Lindem (acee)" Subject: AD Review of draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-15 Resent-From: Resent-To: Jeff Tantsura , , , Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 13:53:45 -0700 (PDT) Dear authors: I just finished reading this document. I have several comments an

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

2018-08-23 Thread Jeff Tantsura
a document. And to be completely honest, the requirements are pretty straightforward for anyone that is familiar with the protocols' operation. my 2c, Peter On 22/08/18 18:42 , Jeff Tantsura wrote: > +1 Tony > > We could start with a document, similar to dc-routi

Re: [Lsr] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd

2018-08-24 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Hi Tal, Many thanks for your comments. Updated draft has been published for your review. Cheers, Jeff From: Tal Mizrahi Date: Monday, August 20, 2018 at 23:45 To: , , , Cc: , "Yemin (Amy)" Subject: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd Resent-From: Resen

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00.txt

2018-08-26 Thread Jeff Tantsura
+1 Having actual key in the protocol - similar issues as with BGP(see recent BGP discussion with Linda), would be a severe security risk. Regards, Jeff > On Aug 25, 2018, at 10:41, Acee Lindem (acee) > wrote: > > Hi Qin, > > I believe it is a significant security exposure to include the

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

2018-08-17 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Acee, The draft is in good shape, support. Cheers, Jeff From: Lsr on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" Date: Friday, August 17, 2018 at 13:09 To: "lsr@ietf.org" Subject: [Lsr] LSR Working Last Call for draft-ietf-ospf-yang This begins an LSR WG last call for the subject draft.

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

2018-08-22 Thread Jeff Tantsura
with other work and be a wg/design team effort. Hope this clarifies. Cheers, Jeff From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" Date: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 13:10 To: Tony Przygienda Cc: Jeff Tantsura , Tony Li , "lsr@ietf.org" , "Acee Lindem (acee)" Subject: RE

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

2018-08-22 Thread Jeff Tantsura
9 To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" Cc: Jeff Tantsura , Tony Li , "lsr@ietf.org" , "Acee Lindem (acee)" Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward I do think to solve all the data centers (massive or small) requirement, this discu

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

2018-08-22 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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, sup

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

2018-08-22 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Acee, I support the adoption and quick progress of this, clear and useful document.. Regards, Jeff > On Aug 22, 2018, at 06:42, Acee Lindem (acee) > wrote: > > This draft has been presented several times and I believe there is general > agreement that IS-IS graceful restart signaling

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

2018-08-22 Thread Jeff Tantsura
+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] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-13.txt

2018-07-24 Thread Jeff Tantsura
e Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF. Title : Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using IS-IS Authors : Jeff Tantsura Uma Chunduri

Re: [Lsr] 答复: 答复: Regarding OSPF extension for inter-area topology retrieval

2018-07-25 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Not going to repeat all the comments made before, +1 Regards, Jeff > On Jul 24, 2018, at 23:08, Tony Przygienda wrote: > > pretty obvious +1 here > > --- tony > >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 3:41 AM Rob Shakir wrote: >> +1 to Peter. We should not define fragile solutions within the IETF. >>

Re: [Lsr] [mpls] Comments on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label

2018-07-05 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Hi, Please see inline (MSD section). Hope this clarifies, thanks! Cheers, Jeff [jeff] both IGP drafts have identical description of the BMI-MSD: “Base MPLS Imposition MSD (BMI-MSD) signals the total number of MPLS labels a node is capable of imposing, including all

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

2018-07-08 Thread Jeff Tantsura
We would like to define the NMP based on the usecases. That is, a specific > set of parameters exported by NMP can satisfy the purpose of a specific > usecase. Thus the protocol can be deployed incrementally. > > > Best Regards, > Robin > > > > -Original Messa

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

2018-04-06 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Acee, What about ospfv2 vs ospfv3 specifics? We keep it as before - eg “ospf” covers either or ospfv2, “ospfv3” is for ospfv3 only? Regards, Jeff > On Apr 6, 2018, at 12:25, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > I'm fine with the proposed naming conventions for new drafts. Formally:

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

2018-04-06 Thread Jeff Tantsura
+1 Regards, Jeff > On Apr 6, 2018, at 12:25, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > I'm fine with the proposed naming conventions for new drafts. Formally: > >-lsr-ospf- - OSPF Specific drafts >-lsr-isis- - IS-IS Specific drafts >-lsr- - Drafts covering

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

2018-04-06 Thread Jeff Tantsura
ll never support multiple address familes). Thanks, Acee On 4/6/18, 5:29 PM, "Jeff Tantsura" <jefftant.i...@gmail.com> wrote: Acee, What about ospfv2 vs ospfv3 specifics? We keep it as before - eg “ospf” covers either or

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption call for "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions" - draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00

2018-04-10 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Support! Regards, Jeff > On Apr 9, 2018, at 21:20, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > This draft simply fixes a problem in RFC 7810 that resulted in an > incompatibility issue with implementations. Given the simplicity of this > document, I’d like to have an abbreviated WG

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

2018-04-04 Thread Jeff Tantsura
+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)"

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG IPR Query for "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using OSPF" - draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-10.txt

2018-04-06 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Hi Acee, I’m aware of the IPR and it has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3040/ Thanks! Cheers, Jeff From: Lsr on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" Date: Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 18:22 To:

Re: [Lsr] LSR Working Group Secretary

2018-04-23 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Couldn’t agree more! Yingzhen is great at everything she does, thanks! (Don’t forget us, at RTGWG ;-)) Regards, Jeff > On Apr 23, 2018, at 10:49, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > > Bravo! > Now LSR is a world class WG. > > Thanx to Yingzhen for taking on this additional

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-16

2018-04-23 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Support as co-author Regards, Jeff > On Apr 23, 2018, at 07:02, Christian Hopps wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > We are starting a new 2 week WG last call on > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions/ > > as there have (*) been some changes

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Last Call for "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using OSPF" - draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-10.txt

2018-04-16 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Hi Ketan Thank you for your review, I’ll address the comments during this week. Thanks! Cheers, Jeff From: Lsr on behalf of "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" Date: Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 05:04 To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" ,

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

2018-10-19 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Great stuff, long time due! Cheers, Jeff On Oct 19, 2018, 12:23 PM -0700, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) , wrote: > Folks - > > This new draft discusses IS-IS protocol behaviors related to handling TLVs > that are either: > > o Not recognized/supported by an implementation > o Present in a PDU where

Re: [Lsr] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-15

2018-09-26 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Gents, Thanks for the great review! Both drafts are on the Telechat tomorrow, would be great to come to the agreement, so ospf draft could be updated before tomorrow’s call. Regards, Jeff > On Sep 26, 2018, at 13:21, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > > Julien - > > Thanx for the additional

Re: [Lsr] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-15

2018-10-02 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Gents, I’m 100% with Les here, going into platform/asic specifics within this document would inevitably create ambiguity. Cheers, Jeff On Oct 2, 2018, 11:20 AM -0700, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) , wrote: > Bruno – > > Trimming the thread… > > [Les2:] Label imposition is meant to cover both the

Re: [Lsr] OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family Traffic Engineering Tunnels - draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-04.txt

2018-10-23 Thread Jeff Tantsura
I support publication of this draft, simple and straightforward. Cheers, Jeff On Oct 23, 2018, 12:49 PM -0700, Acee Lindem (acee) , wrote: > Speaking as a WG member: > >   I support publication of this draft. All of my comments are already in this > revision. > > Thanks, > Acee > > From: Lsr on

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00

2018-11-13 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Yes/support On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 16:53 Qin Wu wrote: > I support this work as one of coauthors. > > > > -Qin > > *发件人:* Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] *代表 *Acee Lindem (acee) > *发送时间:* 2018年11月14日 6:11 > *收件人:* lsr@ietf.org > *主题:* [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security