Re: [OPSAWG] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Let me ask a different version of Carlos (and maybe Randy's) point. If the IETF as a community objected to the content of this draft, presumably there would ahve been significant dissent during the IETF last call. It looked to me like the consensus in support of this was rough but clear. More

Re: [OPSAWG] Genart early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-04

This was a requested early review. You folks can do as you deem best. From where I sit, it seems odd. Most well-known communities do not fit the pattern of representing groups of sources or groups of destinations. I presume the intent here is for this to be useful in some AS other than the on

Re: [OPSAWG] Genart early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-04

of a traffic flow. The procedure for the exporter to get the community informaiton of a traffic flow is the same as it gets the AS information. Best Regards, Zhenqiang Li li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com *From:* Joel M

Re: [OPSAWG] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-06

Thank you for that pointer. It is informative. I looked at a number of the entries (trying to pick larger ISPs as more likely to need more information.) What i see is some ISPs doing what Randy Bush mentioned, marking regions. I see a few ISPs that explicitly mark country (or in one case city

Re: [OPSAWG] [Gen-art] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-06

Randy, I did suggest that one would update the offline data. My point was that the draft claims taht extreme timliness is needed. For IP block geolocation, timeliness on the order of a day (much shorter than the several days before the IETF when the IETF block gets turned on somewhere.) Thus,

Re: [OPSAWG] [Gen-art] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-06

randy, noting that the IETF has trouble with the geo-tagging of its addresses does not seem to have ANYTHING to do with demonstrating how widely used the geo-communities are. If you want to make that case, make it. But don't bring up red herrings. As you note, it is up to the WG, not to me, w

Re: [OPSAWG] 答复: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-06

There seem to be two separate issues. The first issue is what information from BGP would one like to correlate with the traffic flows. I understand that there is useful information. The motivation given in the draft seems to apply to more cases than I thought, but still it is of limited appli

Re: [OPSAWG] [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-06

Thank you Jimmy. While I disagree, I think this states the case clearly enough for it to be up to the working group and relevant ADs. Yours, Joel On 4/15/18 11:40 PM, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote: Hi Joel, Thanks a lot for your review comments. Regarding your first problem, I don't think this draf

Re: [OPSAWG] regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community: IPR call

. Please see https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg04792.html We did not received any objection based on this. Thanks, Tianran -Original Message- From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 8:25 AM To: opsawg-cha...@ietf.org Subject

Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)

The conclusion earlier work on congestive response routing reached was that one needed to pin the specific routing decision until the selected path became infeasible. Yours, Joel On 12/4/18 10:59 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: Hi, Stewart, On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 6:07 AM Stewart Bryant

Re: [OPSAWG] TSVWG WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-08, closes 23 October 2019

If the authors want to publish it as an RFC so as to comment on other RFCs, they could approach the Independent Stream Editor. That sort of publication is one of the explicit purposes of the Independent Stream. Yours, Joel On 11/4/2019 9:34 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 5

Re: [OPSAWG] [tsvwg] TSVWG WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-08, closes 23 October 2019

, Joel On 11/4/2019 9:48 PM, Joe Touch wrote: On Nov 4, 2019, at 6:39 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: If the authors want to publish it as an RFC so as to comment on other RFCs, they could approach the Independent Stream Editor. That sort of publication is one of the explicit purposes of the

Re: [OPSAWG] Call for adoption: draft-boydseda-ipfix-psamp-bulk-data-yang-model

Are you really simultaneously saying 1) As far as you know, the existing draft is not being used 2) You do not want the working group to work on the replacement a number of operators need 3) And you oppose the AD sponsoring the work You are not even saying you don't like it, as you also say you

Re: [OPSAWG] Can we please adopt draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng?

We have many times had WGs whose goals included "produce RFC to document have currently works.? The way we make that stick process-wise historically is to write that into the charter. Since the IESG signs off on the charter, generally later ADs understand and work with the agreement. Wheth

Re: [OPSAWG] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common-09

Thank you for the clarifications Med. That all seems good. Yours, Joel On 9/3/2021 8:38 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: Hi Joel, Thank you for the review. Please see inline. Cheers, Med -Message d'origine- De : Joel Halpern via Datatracker [mailto:nore...@ietf.org] Envoyé