Dear Alex, All,
Thanks a lot for your comments.
We will change the intended status to standards track in the next revision of
the draft.
Your considerations about the IEs for the node delay between the ingress and
the egress interface make sense, especially in the case of Alternate-Marking.
As
Hi Greg,
Thank you for your review and for your opinion of the draft.
I fully agree that the intended status must be standards track. I will change
it in the next revision.
Regards,
Giuseppe
From: Greg Mirsky
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 10:20 AM
To: opsawg ; IETF IPPM WG ;
Hi Xiao, All,
We have just uploaded the new revision of draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark and
we added some text to clarify the point you raised about the LAG interface.
Regards,
Giuseppe
From: xiao.m...@zte.com.cn
Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 12:19 PM
To: thomas.g...@swisscom.com
Cc:
Dear All,
I support the adoption of this draft since it aims to provide guidelines for
OAM terminology, and I think this is quite useful. I’m interested in
contributing and I would also suggest to involve IPPM WG for further review,
considering the correlation with RFC 7799 .
Regards,
Hi Thomas, All,
I fully agree about the progress of draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark and
draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport.
I also think OPSAWG is the right place for the IPFIX IE definitions and for the
adoption of these documents.
IPPMers can surely help review since both AltMark and IOAM have
/doc/draft-gfz-ippm-alt-mark-yang/)
These documents complement the AltMark deployment document for what concerns
the configuration (YANG) and data export (IPFIX) aspects.
Your reviews are welcomed.
Regards,
Giuseppe
(on behalf of the coauthors)
From: Giuseppe Fioccola
Sent: Monday, October 23
Dear All,
Please note that we just submitted a new version of
draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment to address the comments received.
Inputs and suggestions are always welcome.
Regards,
Giuseppe
(on behalf of the coauthors)
From: Nilo Massimo
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 5:22 PM
To:
text in the next revision.
Comments are always welcome.
Best Regards,
Giuseppe
From: thomas.g...@swisscom.com
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 1:23 PM
To: i...@ietf.org; Giuseppe Fioccola ;
draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment.auth...@ietf.org
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Section 6 - draft-fz-ippm
Hi All,
I have read the document and I support advancing it. It is relevant as it
specifies IPFIX extensions to export SRv6 related information.
Regards,
Giuseppe
From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of Joe Clarke (jclarke)
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 2:54 PM
To: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: [OPSAWG]
Hi All,
I have read the draft and I support its adoption.
The new IPFIX information elements introduced in this document are needed to
enable counters information to monitor SRv6 deployment and operation.
Regards,
Giuseppe
From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of Joe Clarke (jclarke)
Sent: Thursday, August
Dear All,
I support the adoption of this related document too.
Regards,
Giuseppe
-Original Message-
From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henk Birkholz
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 8:02 PM
To: opsawg
Subject: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for
Dear All,
I support its adoption as relevant document for the closed loop automation.
Regards,
Giuseppe
-Original Message-
From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henk Birkholz
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 8:00 PM
To: opsawg
Subject: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for
Hi All,
I have read it and support its publication.
Just a minor nit: the reference to draft-fioccola-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark can
be updated to RFC8889.
Regards,
Giuseppe
From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tianran Zhou
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 8:39 AM
To:
Hi All,
Yes, I support its adoption as contributor.
Best Regards,
Giuseppe
From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tianran Zhou
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 6:27 AM
To: opsawg@ietf.org; draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework.auth...@ietf.org
Cc: opsawg-cha...@ietf.org
Subject:
lized
with a step-by-step process.
To apply this mechanism an IFIT Application on top of the Controllers
can manage and the IFIT closed loop allows its dynamic and flexible
operation.
"
Best Regards,
Giuseppe
From: Giuseppe Fioccola
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 1:51 PM
To: '
Dear Haoyu,
Yes, I'm happy to send you some text in the coming days, so you can include it
in the draft.
Best Regards,
Giuseppe
From: Haoyu Song [mailto:haoyu.s...@futurewei.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 7:57 PM
To: Giuseppe Fioccola ; opsawg@ietf.org;
draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framew
Dear All,
I have read the draft and, I think it is a very good framework, in particular
with reference to the real practical challenges.
My suggestion is to highlight a bit more the enabled closed-loop approach that
is a great added value in my opinion.
A possible way can be to introduce a new
Hi Tianran, All,
Yes, I support its adoption. I also helped with some sections of the document.
Best Regards,
Giuseppe
From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of li zhenqiang
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2019 10:06
To: Tianran Zhou ; opsawg@ietf.org
Cc: opsawg-cha...@ietf.org
18 matches
Mail list logo
