When my Cisco E-mail ID was reactivated I noticed a large number of
subscription requests for the subject IETF mailing list. Note that this list
was used during the 2004-2006 OSPF MANET work and is no longer active. I’ve
discarded all these requests.
Thanks,
Acee
Hi Peter,
As we discussed in yesterday’s WG meeting, the poll indicated support of making
OSPFv3 Segment Routing a WG draft.
Please republish draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-ospfv3-extension-02 as
draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-ospfv3-extension-00.
Thanks,
Acee
Hi Helen,
As an author, I would certainly support this work. I think it is clearly
in the OSPF WG¹s best interest to facilitate migration to a single
version. When that happens will be dependent on numerous factors including
requirements, deployments, and how well we facilitate it.
Thanks,
Acee
The BFD WG has adopted all the seamless BFD base documents as WG documents -
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bfd/documents/
Hence, we feel it is logical to support this work with OSPF advertisement of
the global S-BFD discriminators.
Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this
:05 AM, Peter Psenak (ppsenak) ppse...@cisco.com wrote:
On 8/25/14 23:18 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF
advertised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of
remote-LFA eligibility.
my concern with the generic use
Hi Uma,
Thanks for the review and support. See inline.
On 8/27/14, 7:10 AM, Uma Chunduri uma.chund...@ericsson.com wrote:
Support.
Obviously well written and well though through. I see this is the anchor
document for ISIS.
Nits:
1. Security can be tricky and it depends on the deployment
This version addresses Uma¹s WG last call comments and add an
acknowledgement of another one of the implementations.
Thanks,
Acee
On 8/27/14, 5:19 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org internet-dra...@ietf.org
wrote:
A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-08.txt
has been successfully
Speaking as WG member:
I agree with using capability bits for whether or not a OSPF router can
support something and administrative tags for policy. I don¹t think we
should have well-known tags and am not really even in favor of reserving a
range just in case we need them.
Thanks,
Acee
On
Hi Tony, Peter,
I plan to update the draft next week and address some of these
clarifications.
Thanks,
Acee
On 9/5/14, 4:34 AM, Peter Psenak (ppsenak) ppse...@cisco.com wrote:
Hi Tony,
please see inline:
On 9/4/14 21:02 , A. Przygienda wrote:
On 09/04/2014 12:24 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
On 9/6/14, 10:47 AM, A. Przygienda p...@zeta2.ch wrote:
It's also wise to add 'if the same extended prefix TLV (i.e. for same
prefix) is seen twice in same opaque LSA only use the first and force
people to put all sub-tlvs into a single tlv.
it's kind of obvious, but we can add a text to
This version includes clarifications in response to Tony Przygienda¹s
comments as well as some editorial changes. There are no changes to the
protocol extensions.
Thanks,
Acee
On 9/8/14, 2:27 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org internet-dra...@ietf.org
wrote:
A new version of I-D,
We have received anonymous support for the subject document and it is required
for the Seamless BFD work in the BFD WG. Hence, we are accepting it as a WG
document.
Authors, please resubmit as draft-ietf-ospf-bfd-descriminator-00.txt.
Thanks,
Acee
This version includes the following additions:
1. Added IPv4 Forwarding Address sub-TLV
2. Added restriction that OSPFv3 Extended LSA must include the required TLVs
or be considered malformed.
- E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA must include the Inter-Area-Prefix TLV
-
Authors – additionally, please confirm whether or not you are aware of IPR
related to this draft.
Thanks,
Acee
From: Acee Lindem a...@cisco.commailto:a...@cisco.com
Date: Friday, September 19, 2014 at 2:25 PM
To: OSPF WG List ospf@ietf.orgmailto:ospf@ietf.org, Manav Bhatia
This subject draft in WG last call has this IPR statement:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_searchid=draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions
Authors – please indicate whether or not you are aware of any other IPR.
Thanks,
Acee
From: Acee Lindem
This subject draft in WG last call has this IPR statement:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_searchid=draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions
Authors – please indicate whether or not you are aware of any other IPR.
Thanks,
Acee
From: Acee Lindem
)
Metric Extensions (draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-06.txt)
I am not
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Acee Lindem (acee)
a...@cisco.commailto:a...@cisco.com wrote:
This subject draft in WG last call has this IPR statement:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_searchid=draft
Uma, Xiaohu, Manav,
We are accepting this draft as a WG document. Please reissue as
draft-ietf-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address-00.txt. Also, please indicate whether or
not you are aware of any IPR claims related to the draft.
Thanks,
Acee
___
OSPF
This version just addresses Alia¹s AD review comments. The draft is in
IESG Last Call.
Thanks,
Acee
On 10/7/14, 6:38 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org internet-dra...@ietf.org
wrote:
A new version of I-D,
draft-ietf-ospf-security-extension-manual-keying-09.txt
has been successfully submitted by
Hey Russ,
On 10/11/14, 10:07 AM, Russ White ru...@riw.us wrote:
As I stated in my last E-mail, the IGPs aren't really a good tool for
generic
flow-spec distribution. Other than perhaps DDoS mitigation, I don't see
a
real
use case for flooding the same flow-spec to everyone in the routing
OSPF WG Participants,
The preliminary schedule for IETF 91 has been published. We are currently
scheduled to meet on Wednesday afternoon. Note that changes to the agenda
are still possible until it is finalized on October 17th.
Please start considering whether you want to ask for time on the
On 10/11/14, 11:30 AM, Russ White ru...@riw.us wrote:
OSPF is a good choice for quickly disseminating the same piece of
information
to multiple OSPF routers using the same policy and I believe that the
transport instance http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-transport-
instance-11.txt
on first use
- Min/Max delay and Low/High delay are used interchangeably, suggest to
use only one
Regards,
Dhruv
From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: 20 September 2014 01:49
To: OSPF WG List; draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensi...@tools.ietf.org
Subject
We believe there is sufficient support for the subject document. Please
resubmit the document as draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag-00.txt.
There was significant discussion on the list on when this mechanism should be
used and when OSPF capabilities advertisement should be used. That should be
We believe there is sufficient support for the subject document. Please
resubmit the document as draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-00.txt.
There was significant discussion on the list on when this mechanism should
be used and when OSPF capabilities advertisement should be used. That
should be
Hi Alia, Tom, Juergen,
Can one of you forward tomorrow’s netmod WebEx to this list as well?
Thanks,
Acee
From: Alia Atlas akat...@gmail.commailto:akat...@gmail.com
Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 at 5:46 PM
To: OSPF WG List ospf@ietf.orgmailto:ospf@ietf.org
Cc:
...@cisco.com
wrote:
On 03/11/2014 14:20, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
The base MRT specifications are rtgwg WG documents. Additionally, this
document now uses the OSPFv2 link extensions that we have converged upon
for OSPFv2 protocol extension. Hence, the chairs believe this document
is
ready
Given the high volume of OSPF session requests for IETF 91 and the fact
that the changes since the last IETF are minor, I decided not to allocate
any session time to this important OSPF WG draft. However, I am providing
an update here:
Recent Changes:
- Added an IPv4
I guess everyone agree with this draft change?
Thanks,
Acee
On 11/3/14, 12:57 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) a...@cisco.com wrote:
Are there any implementations of this draft? There is, what I consider, a
mistake in the source address protection. I¹d like to make it consistent
with RFC 7166. Rather
We have a volunteer to take minutes. Do we have someone who can be the
jabber scribe?
Also, if you are presenting and have not sent me your slides, please do so
ASAP. I¹m still missing a few slide decks.
Thanks,
Acee
___
OSPF mailing list
packet can be detected.
Thanks,
Acee
On 11/10/14, 10:37 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) a...@cisco.com wrote:
I believe this version satisfies both Adrian¹s and Suresh¹s comments made
during the IESG and GENART review. It also includes a editorial correction
from Alissa Cooper.
Thanks,
Acee
On 11/10/14
Let me summarize this. This draft allows TE endpoints and prefixes of
either address family to be advertised in either TE LSAs in either OSPFv2
or OSPFv3.
Thanks,
Acee
On 11/5/14, 8:04 AM, Anton Smirnov (asmirnov) asmir...@cisco.com wrote:
Hi all,
there is a -02 revision of
We¹ve been working on this for several IETFs now and the chairs believe it
is time for WG adoption. Note that this document started in the NETMOD WG.
Please indicate your support of opposition of WG adoptions. Here is a URL
for your convenience:
Please publish draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-08.txt as a standards
track document.
I am the document shepherd and have attached the IESG writeup.
Thanks,
Acee
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or
Speaking as WG member: Support
On 12/2/14, 7:51 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) a...@cisco.com wrote:
We¹ve been working on this for several IETFs now and the chairs believe it
is time for WG adoption. Note that this document started in the NETMOD WG.
Please indicate your support of opposition of WG
Hi Barry,
Thanks for your review. See inline.
On 1/26/15, 6:39 AM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote:
Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-12: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email
Hi Adrian,
On 2/2/15, 3:30 PM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
Hi Jari,
Thanks for engaging!
I've cut down to the open issues. Recall that Comments are just for you
and your
AD to think about.
Adrian
Does this document really update 5340?
There is no mention of what this update
Hi Benoit,
On 2/5/15, 8:31 AM, Benoit Claise (bclaise) bcla...@cisco.com wrote:
Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-13: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and
Thanks Much Robert,
Acee
On 1/16/15, 10:58 AM, Robert Sparks rjspa...@nostrum.com wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any
This version address comments from both the OPS Directorate (Qin Wu) and
GEN-ART (Robert Sparks) reviews.
Thanks,
Acee
On 1/16/15, 11:11 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org
internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A new version (-12) has been submitted for
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig:
for the one producing the
minutes, less work the one, perhaps more than one!, consuming the
minutes.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Acee Lindem (acee) a...@cisco.com
To: OSPF WG List ospf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 3:02 AM
Subject: [OSPF] IETF 91 OSPF WG Minutes
We
We will accept the OSPF MRT extensions as a WG document. Progression will
parallel that of the base documents in the RTG WG.
Thanks,
Acee
On 11/3/14, 9:20 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) a...@cisco.com wrote:
The base MRT specifications are rtgwg WG documents. Additionally, this
document now uses
This version only includes some comments from Rama Darbha and Barry
Leiba¹s request to clarify the IANA guidance for the new registry.
Thanks,
Acee
On 1/27/15, 3:12 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org internet-dra...@ietf.org
wrote:
A new version (-13) has been submitted for
We have sufficient support for the TTZ work and will accept it an
experimental protocol extension.
Huaimo - please reissue the draft as draft-ietf-ospf-ttz-00.txt.
Thanks,
Acee and Abhay
On 1/10/15, 4:09 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) a...@cisco.com wrote:
We have discussed OSPF TTZ at several IETFs
Hi Stephen, Adrian,
On 1/4/15, 4:39 AM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
Hi Stephen,
I'd like the authors and shepherd to pitch in, but...
- I'd have thought that these TLVs would be sent more
often than others, and that (if enormous amounts of
money are in play) then use of OSPF
Hi Martin,
On 1/5/15, 7:07 AM, Martin Vigoureux
martin.vigour...@alcatel-lucent.com wrote:
Hello,
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG
Thanks to Martin Vigoureux for the Routing Directorate review. This
version addresses his review comments.
Acee
On 1/6/15, 10:14 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org internet-dra...@ietf.org
wrote:
A new version (-10) has been submitted for
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig:
Hi Adrian,
I think it should be clear now:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-15.tx
t
I also fixed some misspelling introduced in the -14 version.
Thanks,
Acee
On 2/9/15, 4:18 PM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
Adrian Farrel has entered the
OSPF WG Participants,
The preliminary schedule for IETF 91 has been published. We are currently
scheduled to meet in the first session on Monday morning. Note that
changes to the agenda
are still possible until it is finalized on February 27th.
Please start considering whether you want to ask
We have had substantive changes to section 4 during the final document
review period. These changes are to better align with RFC 7210 and the
best practices in RFC 7211. There is also a correction in the last
paragraph of section 5. Hence, we are going to WG last call the final
document (now RFC
Hi Anil,
Thanks for point these out. I’m sure the authors will take care of these in the
next revision. The idnits checks will flag these downgraded references with
warnings.
Thanks,
Acee
From: Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)
anil...@huawei.commailto:anil...@huawei.com
Date: Tuesday, March 24,
Now that the MPLS WG has accepted
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label/ as
a WG document. We are polling for adoption of draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01 as
an OSPF WG. The poll will end on April 15th, 2015 at 12:00 AM EDT. Please
indicate your support or objection prior
Hi Alia,
As you recall, I recommended verification of this errata.
Thanks,
Acee
On 3/3/15, 4:56 PM, RFC Errata System rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
The following errata report has been held for document update
for RFC2328, OSPF Version 2.
--
You may
Thanks to the authors for persistence is publishing this RFC. I believe
these TE extensions were first presented at IETF 80 in Prague under the
moniker of OSPF TE Express Path.
Acee
On 3/3/15, 8:51 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
A new Request for Comments is now
Hi Shraddha, Les,
See one inline.
On 2/27/15, 1:29 AM, Shraddha Hegde shrad...@juniper.net wrote:
Les,
Thanks for the review and comments.
Pls see in-line..
I have some comments in this draft.
---Introduction
---I think the last sentence should be removed. It is providing
Please see the URL for the OSPF WG minutes. Thanks to Les Ginsberg from
Cisco for taking them.
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/minutes/minutes-92-ospf
Thanks,
Acee
___
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
Hi Tiger, other authors,
Given the support and the corresponding work in the MPLS WG, we will adopt
this document as a WG document. Please resubmit as
draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-00.txt.
Thanks,
Acee
On 3/31/15, 1:24 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) a...@cisco.com wrote:
Now that the MPLS WG has accepted
Hi Fredrik,
Note that passive interfaces are a non-standard protocol extension and are not
subject to IETF specification. Having said that, you have misunderstood how the
passive feature has been implemented by many vendors. The passive interface
subnet will be advertised as a local stub
The WG last call has ended. We will advance the draft.
Thanks,
Acee
On 4/15/15, 11:46 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) a...@cisco.com wrote:
This draft describes the core mechanisms for OSPFv2 protocol extension and
there are several WG documents that are dependent on it. We have several
implementations
Since this document is the implementation report for the OSPF Prefix/Link
Attributes specification, we plan to make it a WG document. If you have
any strong objections please let them be known ASAP. Also, we have
received responses from Alcatel-Lucent, Cisco, Huawei, and Juniper. If you
have an
The following questions related to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr/
1. Have you implemented the OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attributes Draft?
If the answer is no, you are done.
2. Have you implemented the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix opaque LSA and OSPFv2
Extended
The only change to this version is the addition of the “Implementation
Status” section. Consistent with RFC 6982, this obviates the need for a
separate implementation report. Hence,
draft-acee-ospf-prefix-link-attr-impl-03.txt will be allowed to simply
time out without further advancement.
Thanks,
This draft describes the core mechanisms for OSPFv2 protocol extension and
there are several WG documents that are dependent on it. We have several
implementations. We feel we are ready for WG last call. The WG last call
will start now and end on Thursday, April 29th at 12:00 AM PDT. Please
direct
Hi Vlad,
From: Vlad Olariu
florinvlad.ola...@gmail.commailto:florinvlad.ola...@gmail.com
Date: Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 1:40 PM
To: OSPF WG List ospf@ietf.orgmailto:ospf@ietf.org
Subject: [OSPF] Cisco OSPF implementation - Different networks on serial links
Hello,
I was reading the OSPFv2
We intend to WG last call this draft shortly as it is a normative
reference for many WG documents. Please speak now if you have any serious
comments.
Thanks,
Acee
___
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
Hi Ondrej,
On Jun 18, 2015, at 1:14 PM, Ondrej Zajicek santi...@crfreenet.org
wrote:
Hello
We noticed that in RFC 2328 there are some border cases of OSPF loading
phase that are vague enough to cause compatibility problems between
different implementations. It is the Link State Request / Update
The preliminary IETF-93 agenda has been posted and ospf-wg currently has
a 2 hour slot on Wednesday at 17:40, this is subject to change.
If you would like an agenda slot for the upcoming OSPF WG meeting
at IETF 93 in Prague, please send the chairs a request. I know I
did an early poll to assure
All,
We haven’t had any problems with this in the OSPF WG but I’ll repost
never-the-less.
Thanks,
Acee
-Original Message-
From: IETF-Announce [mailto:ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
The IESG
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:32 PM
To: IETF Announcement List
Subject: IESG
I support this work (as co-author).
Acee
On 6/1/15, 12:41 PM, Abhay Roy (akr) a...@cisco.com wrote:
I am delighted to share that the authors of
draft-liang-ospf-flowspec-extensions and
draft-shrivastava-ospf-flow-spec have merged their documents and it will
retain the name
Hi Manav,
One concern is that more than one way to advertise a routable address has
evolved. We now have the node flag associated with a routable address in
OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Advertisement
(draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-05.txt). This has been implemented by 5
vendors and is on
Authors,
Please indicate whether or not you are aware of any IPR on the subject
document.
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-05.tx
t
Thanks,
Acee
___
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
Speaking as an author,
I am not aware of any IPR.
Thanks,
Acee
On 5/22/15, 11:33 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) a...@cisco.com wrote:
Authors,
Please indicate whether or not you are aware of any IPR on the subject
document.
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-05.t
x
Hi Kathleen,
Here are the updated Security Considerations” after addressing Alvaro’s
comments.
6. Security Considerations
In general, new LSAs defined in this document are subject to the same
security concerns as those described in [OSPFV2] and [OPAQUE].
OSPFv2 applications utilizing
Hi Barry,
Thanks for the review.
On 8/14/15, 1:13 PM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote:
Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-10: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses
Hi Ben,
Thanks for the review.
On 8/17/15, 6:44 PM, Ben Campbell b...@nostrum.com wrote:
Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-10: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included
Hi Kathleen,
On 8/18/15, 10:57 AM, Kathleen Moriarty
kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for your quick response, Acee. I just have one tweak inline
that is usually important from a security standpoint.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) a...@cisco.com
wrote
On 8/19/15, 12:55 PM, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
On 19/08/15 17:46, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On 8/19/15, 11:51 AM, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie
wrote:
Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-prefix
.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) a...@cisco.com
wrote:
On 8/18/15, 3:38 PM, Kathleen Moriarty
kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) a...@cisco.com
wrote:
Hi Kathleen,
On 8/18/15, 1:54 PM, Kathleen Moriarty
Hi Stephen,
On 8/19/15, 11:51 AM, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-12: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in
On 8/19/15, 2:58 PM, Kathleen Moriarty
kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Acee,
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) a...@cisco.com
wrote:
Hi Kathleen,
On 8/19/15, 2:14 PM, Kathleen Moriarty
kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Acee,
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2
) is that the set of
valid tags for a given OSPF(v3) router is the superset of the tags in all
the existing OSPF(v3) Router Information LSAs advertised by that router.
Thanks,
Acee
On 7/23/15, 2:24 PM, OSPF on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)
ospf-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of a...@cisco.com wrote
Hi Kathleen,
The -13 version includes the clarifying text.
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-13.txt
Thanks,
Acee
On 8/19/15, 3:34 PM, Kathleen Moriarty
kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Acee,
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) a...@cisco.com
We believe the -11 version addresses all the pending comments.
Thanks,
Acee
On 8/18/15, 9:20 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org internet-dra...@ietf.org
wrote:
A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-11.txt
has been successfully submitted by Acee Lindem and posted to the
IETF
On 8/18/15, 3:38 PM, Kathleen Moriarty
kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) a...@cisco.com
wrote:
Hi Kathleen,
On 8/18/15, 1:54 PM, Kathleen Moriarty
kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com wrote:
Acee,
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Acee
The seamless BFD work is being advanced in the BFD WG. Hence, we will advance
the corresponding protocol document.
This begins the WG last call for the subject draft. Please send your
comments to this list prior to 12:00 AM GMT, August 26th, 2015. Note that
we are doing a 4 week WG last call
Authors,
Please indicate whether or not you are aware of any IPR on the subject
document.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator/
Thanks,
Acee
___
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
I have received statements from all the authors indicating that there is
no IPR on the OSPF S-BFD document.
Thanks,
Acee
On 7/28/15, 9:02 PM, OSPF on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)
ospf-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of a...@cisco.com wrote:
The seamless BFD work is being advanced in the BFD WG
Hi Alia,
Thanks for the review.
From: Alia Atlas akat...@gmail.commailto:akat...@gmail.com
Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 2:22 PM
To:
draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-a...@ietf.orgmailto:draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-a...@ietf.org
.
Thanks,
Acee
On 7/28/15, 9:02 PM, OSPF on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)
ospf-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of a...@cisco.com wrote:
The seamless BFD work is being advanced in the BFD WG. Hence, we will
advance the corresponding protocol document.
This begins the WG last call for the subject draft
Link State (LS) Type
is a registry, something which you might incorporate.
'existing OSPF IANA registry' I find ambiguous.
I agree - this will be clarified for all 4 of the new registries in the 08
version of the draft.
Thanks,
Acee
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Acee Lindem
Draft Authors,
In preparation for WG last call, please indicate whether you are aware of
any relevant IPR and if so, whether it has been disclosed.
Thanks,
Acee
___
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
This begins the WG last call for the subject draft. Please send your
comments to this list prior to 12:00 AM GMT, August 22th, 2015. Note that
we are doing a 4 week WG last call due to the volume of IETF WG last calls
made this week and the fact that many WG participants may be taking
vacation in
FYI - with respect to yesterday’s OSPF presentation on TE advertisement of
time-based bandwidth, the work in MPLS and TEAS would need to precede it.
Thanks,
Acee
On 7/23/15, 3:50 PM, Teas on behalf of Adrian Farrel
teas-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
Hi,
Having
The OSPF WG minutes are now posted (see link below). Thanks to Les
Ginsberg for taking them.
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/minutes/minutes-93-ospf
Please send me any corrections or additions.
Thanks,
Acee
___
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
Presenters,
Please send me your slides for IETF 93.
Thanks,
Acee
___
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
. If neighbor knows this then the
BFD down event can be ignored w minimal risk – otherwise you need to treat it
as a real failure.
Les
From: Anil Raj [mailto:anilra...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 8:51 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Acee Lindem (acee); OSPF WG List
Subject: Re
Hi Anil,
OSPF and OSPFv3 graceful restart pre-dated BFD so this wasn’t explicitly
covered. However, given that the intension is that the data plane is preserved
during restart, an implementation could interpret this as a topology change and
terminate helper mode as documented in section 3.2 of
tifying the draft with the IANA early
allocation requests to IANA and cc me, and then I'll send in my
approval.
Will do.
Thanks,
Acee
Regards,
Alia
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Acee Lindem (acee)
<a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>> wrote:
OSPF Prefix/Link Attributes is clo
Authors,
Please indicate whether you are aware of any relevant IPR and if so,
whether it has been disclosed.
Thanks,
Acee
___
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
enabled on a link would
>qualify as being "TE-enabled" or not.
>
>Thanks,
>Chris
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 12:40 PM
>To: Chris Bowers <cbow...@juniper.net>; Ac
1 - 100 of 411 matches
Mail list logo
