Re: [OSPF] Single Hop MANET versus Broadcast/P2MP Hybrid Interface

Yes to (1) and no opinion on (2) Alia On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Acee Lindem acee.lin...@ericsson.com wrote: Speaking as WG Co-Chair, As many of you remember, we spent a lot of WG time 2004-2007 discussing various OSPF MANET solutions. We were unable to converge on a single solution

Re: [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01

Hi Acee, John Drake and I did take a look at the draft mentioned in CCAMP. It had a large number of requirements and extensions to a number of different protocols. There is one sub-TLV (latency) that appears the same - but the expectations as to averaging vs. instantaneous were different. The

Re: [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01

and measurement).   3. Assure the sub-TLVs are appropriately named to avoid confusion between the latency applications. Thanks, Acee On Jun 21, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: Hi Acee, John Drake and I did take a look at the draft mentioned in CCAMP.  It had a large number

[OSPF] Request for feedback on draft-atlas-ospf-mrt-00.txt

: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org] Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 1:37 PM To: Chris Bowers; Shraddha Hegde; Alia Atlas; cbowers@; Jeff Tantsura Subject: New Version Notification for draft-atlas-ospf-mrt-00.txt A new version of I-D, draft-atlas-ospf-mrt-00.txt has been

[OSPF] Creation of rtg-yang-coord mailing list

The rtg-yang-coord mailing list will provide a forum for coordination of the development of YANG models being worked on for Routing, in order to provide a consistent view to the NMS. The intended participants are people active in Routing working groups and interested in the associated YANG

[OSPF] netmod interim discussing an OSPF model tomorrow...

-- Forwarded message -- From: Thomas D. Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.com Date: Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 5:44 PM Subject: [netmod] interim meeting: yang model focus To: NETMOD Working Group net...@ietf.org Tomorrow's meeting will use the same WebEx from last time (and the same

Re: [OSPF] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC2328 (4330)

Thanks for the prompt feedback. It's been verified. Alia On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Acee Lindem acee.lin...@gmail.com wrote: Alia, Alvaro, I agree this errata should be verified as an editorial errata. It’s an editorial errata since the intent of the text is clear as is. Thanks,

Re: [OSPF] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-10: (with DISCUSS)

Hi Kathleen, As discussed, the type field in the TLVs and sub-TLVs are limited to their range. This draft in the IANA considerations specifies what the range for those values are. This is just as has been done with other OSPF TLVs ( for example

Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-06

Hi Acee, On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Acee Lindem acee.lin...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Alia, See a couple inlines. On Aug 1, 2015, at 5:54 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) a...@cisco.com wrote: Hi Alia, Thanks for the review. From: Alia Atlas akat...@gmail.com Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 2:22

Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-06

Hi Acee, On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) a...@cisco.com wrote: Hi Alia, Thanks for the review. From: Alia Atlas akat...@gmail.com Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 2:22 PM To: draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-a...@ietf.org draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-a...@ietf.org, OSPF WG

[OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-06

As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-06 before asking for IETF Last Call. First, thank you very much for your hard work on this draft. It is lovely to see needed work move quickly and have numerous interoperable implementations. I do have a number of

Re: [OSPF] OSPF Segment Routing IANA Early Allocations

Acee, I would certainly approve an early allocation request for these. Be aware that new registries created by a draft aren't subject to early allocation. Instead, the new registries are maintained by the associated draft(s). Please send an email identifying the draft with the IANA early

Re: [OSPF] Alvaro's DISCUSS on OSPF Admin Tags

Hi Shraddha & Acee, On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net> wrote: > Hi Acee/Alia, > > > > Pls see inline.. > > > > *From:* Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 11, 2015 2:11 AM >

Re: [OSPF] IANA Considerations in draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis

Alvaro, Is there a reason not to split up the Unassigned range into Standards Action and RFC Required? Also, are you picking RFC Required over IETF Review [RFC5226]? The former would open up for Independent Stream RFCs while the latter would not. Can we get opinions from the WG? I am expecting

Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-07

Hi Acee, On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Alia, > > Thanks for the review - you caught some rather subtle points. > thanks - this was a nice tractable draft to read in a short time. > From: OSPF <ospf-boun...@ietf.org&

[OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-07

As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-07. First, I would like to thank the authors for their work on this document. It looks like very useful technology. I have a few minor questions below. I will put this into IETF Last Call as well while waiting for

Re: [OSPF] IPR Disclosure Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions

Peter, On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:03 AM, Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com> wrote: > Alia, > > On 6/16/16 01:09 , Alia Atlas wrote: > >> Stefano, Clarence, and Peter, >> >> Could you please clarify if this IPR disclosure is simply updating the >> previously

Re: [OSPF] IPR Disclosure Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions

Stefano, Clarence, and Peter, Could you please clarify if this IPR disclosure is simply updating the previously disclosed IPR or represents additional IPR? I do see that there is at least some overlap. Thanks, Alia On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, IETF Secretariat wrote: >

Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-disciminator-03

Sounds great. Do submit it.Version numbers are cheap. Thanks, Alia On Apr 13, 2016 12:39 PM, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" wrote: > Hi Alia, > > Thanks for this review! Please see inline. > > > On Apr 12, 2016, at 4:06 PM, akat...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > First, thanks

[OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-05

First, I would like to thank the authors, Jeffrey, Lili, Acee, David, Vibhor and Tom, for their work on this draft. As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-05. I do have a few concerns which are detailed below. The number of authors will block progressing to

[OSPF] Fwd: Additional extension for the early allocations from draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions

This gives an additional year for the ospf-spring-extensions. I sincerely hope that the draft has progressed to RFC well before then. Regards, Alia -- Forwarded message -- From: IESG Secretary Date: Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 1:44 PM Subject: Additional

Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] New Version Notification for draft-bryant-rtgwg-param-sync-01.txt

lto:isis-wg-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Alia Atlas *Sent:* Tuesday, February 28, 2017 7:43 PM *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) *Cc:* isis...@ietf.org; rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; internet-dra...@ietf.org; ospf@ietf.org; rt...@ietf.org *Subject:* Re: [Isis-wg] New Version Notification for draft-bryant-rtgwg-p

Re: [OSPF] New Version Notification for draft-bryant-rtgwg-param-sync-01.txt

apability TLV. > > My recommendation is to write a draft confined to the definition of the > new convergence time parameter you wish to advertise and let us review that > on its own merits. > >Les > > > -Original Message- > > From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org

Re: [OSPF] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-09: (with COMMENT)

Acee, Jeffrey, and Lili, If you could please submit a new version ASAP with this change and removing the update to 5340, then this draft is approved and we can move it to the RFC Editor. Thanks & good work, Alia On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > >

[OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-ttz-04

As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-ttz-04. First, I would like to thank the authors, Huaimo, Renwei, Alvaro, Yi, Vic, & Mehmet, as well as the contributors & the WG for their work on this document. With this number of authors, it is necessary to either select a small

Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-ttz-04

Hi Huaimo, Thank you for the updated draft that addresses my comments. I am concerned about the attack vector that the op-code migration opens, but at least it is documented and this is experimental. I will move this to IETF Last Call and place it on the IESG telechat for January 5. Regards,

[OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-18

As is customary, I have done another AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-18. I do appreciate the improvements in the draft. I do still see a few minor issues. I would like to see a revised draft before IETF Last Call. I expect to progress this at an IESG telechat with the

[OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06

As is customary, I have done another AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06. First, I'd like to thank the authors for their work and the improvement. I have one minor issue on the IANA section. For the current FCFS space, I think it would be better to have "Specification Required" so

[OSPF] merging OSPF & ISIS WGs & mailing lists

As discussed in the ISIS and OSPF, we are going to be experimenting for the next 4 months (through the next IETF at least) with what it would feel like to have a merged WG for OSPF and IS-IS. This is driven by the goals of having conversations in one place for the various extensions that are

Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-03

ation attribute > (§7) > - a significant rule added: " A tunnel MUST NOT be used if there is no > route toward the IP address >specified in the Endpoint Sub-TLV or if the route is not advertised >by the router advertising the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute >adve

Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-03

Hi Bruno, On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 8:31 AM, <bruno.decra...@orange.com> wrote: > Hi Alia, > > > > More inline [Bruno2] > > > > *From:* Alia Atlas [mailto:akat...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 29, 2017 11:09 PM > *To:* DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN > *Cc:

Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-05.txt

Hi Acee, Thanks for the update. I'm happy to have the WG & authors resolve these issues. Regards, Alia On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Hi Alia, > > So the issues we are still discussing are: > > 1. Common IGP Tunnel Type/Tunnel Attribute

[OSPF] Fwd: Last Call: (Advertising L2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in IS-IS) to Proposed Standard

Dear RTGWG, OSPF WG & IDR WG, I'd like to bring this IETF Last Call to your attention. The method for advertising L2 bundle information via IS-IS described in this draft may be of interest for other protocols (OSPF, BGP-LS) that may use it as precedent for how to advertise such information if

Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-03

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Xuxiaohu <xuxia...@huawei.com> wrote: > Hi Alia, > > > > Thanks a lot for your AD review. Please see our response inline. > > > > *发件人**:* Alia Atlas [mailto:akat...@gmail.com <akat...@gmail.com>] > *发送时间**:* 2017年6月15日

[OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-16

As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-16 once publication has been requested. First, I would like to thank the editors & many authors, Peter, Stefano, Clarence, Hannes, Rob, Wim & Jeff, for the work that they have put in so far and the remaining

Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-16

personally see any - except for, perhaps, the increased ability to fingerprint the type and version of routers with these advertisements. Regards, Alia On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com> wrote: > As is customary, I have done my AD review of > draft-ietf-

Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-16

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) < sprev...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > On May 31, 2017, at 4:34 PM, Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Acee, > > > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <a..

[OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-03

As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-03. First, I would like to thank the authors - Xiaohu, Bruno, Robert, Luis, and Luay - for their work on this useful document. I do have a few concerns that need addressing before the draft can progress. Major: 1)

Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-16

ards, Alia > Thanks, > Acee > From: OSPF <ospf-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Alia Atlas < > akat...@gmail.com> > Date: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 10:35 PM > To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-segment- > routing-extensi...@ietf.org" ro

Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06

Hi Bruno, On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 7:59 AM, <bruno.decra...@orange.com> wrote: > Hi Alia, Acee, WG > > > > *From:* Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, August 12, 2017 7:25 PM > *To:* Alia Atlas; draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-...@ietf.org

Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-18

Hi Peter, On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Alia, > > thanks for comments, please see inline: > > On 12/08/17 04:09 , Alia Atlas wrote: > >> As is customary, I have done another AD review >> of draft-ietf-ospf

[OSPF] early AD review of draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-07

I have done an early AD review of draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-07 in preparation for the publication request. First, I would like to thank the many authors for their work on this draft. Given that there are currently 7 authors listed, I'd recommend appointing a few editors or otherwise

Re: [OSPF] early AD review of draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-07

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Alia, > > please see inline: > > On 02/10/17 16:41 , Alia Atlas wrote: > >> Hi Peter, >> >> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com >> &

Re: [OSPF] early AD review of draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-07

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Alia, > > please see inline: > > On 02/10/17 17:33 , Alia Atlas wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com >> <mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>>

Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-18

behavior for SIDs adverised by SRMS has been > clarified. > > thanks, > Peter > > > On 18/09/17 17:47 , Alia Atlas wrote: > >> Hi Peter, >> >> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com >> <mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>&

Re: [OSPF] early AD review of draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-07

orks for BIER. For OSPF, getting that draft done will help a great deal with enabling feature parity for IPv6. Thanks for all your work on it. Regards, Alia > Thanks, > Acee > > From: Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, October 2, 2017 at 2:32 PM > To:

Re: [OSPF] Additional OSPFv2 Segment Routing IANA Early Allocation Request

approved On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 8:31 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Hi Amanda, et al, > > In addition to the current early allocations for this draft, we request > early allocation for the following code points from the OSPF Router > Information (RI) TLVs registry: > > o 14 -

Re: [OSPF] FW: Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10

approved On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Please provide allocations for the code points in > draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10.txt: > > OSPF Extended Link TLVs Registry > >i) Link-Overload sub-TLV - Suggested value 5 > >ii) Remote IPv4

[OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend

As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-19. First, I would like to thank the authors - Acee, Abhay, Dirk, Veerendranatha, and Fred- and the implementors at Nokia and Huawei (who have enabled us to move forward on this critical document) and the WG. This

[OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10

As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10. First, I would like to thank the authors - Shraddha, Pushpasis, Hannes, Mohan, and Luay - as well as the WG for their hard work on this document. I have several minor comments that should be resolved before it goes to

Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter

extensions to the LSR > IGPs as > > applicable to LSV protocol operation and scale. > > > > Thanks, > > Acee > > > > *From: *Isis-wg <isis-wg-boun...@ietf.org> <isis-wg-boun...@ietf.org> on > behalf of Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com

Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter

sday, January 24, 2018 at 15:09 > *To: *Stewart Bryant <stewart.bry...@gmail.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" < > a...@cisco.com>, Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com> > *Cc: *OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>, "isis...@ietf.org" <isis...@ietf.org> > *Subject:

Re: [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Yes on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-21: (with COMMENT)

Hi Acee, Thanks for your quick responses. On the point about the N-flag, I also found it was a bit underspecified in my AD review. Could you please spend a bit of time thinking about how to make it clearer. Thanks, Alia On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Acee Lindem (acee)

Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter

:* Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Les > Ginsberg (ginsberg) > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2018 2:33 PM > *To:* Stewart Bryant <stewart.bry...@gmail.com>; Acee Lindem (acee) < > a...@cisco.com>; Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com> > > *Cc:* OSPF List

Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter

e need for extensions and to confirm that the planned work > meets the needs and is compatible with both IS-IS and OSPF from > functional, architectural and performance point of views > > > > Andrew > > > > *From: *Isis-wg <isis-wg-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Alia A

Re: [OSPF] Deborah Brungard's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

c set to 0x, 0 as unreserved bandwidth. " and draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-14 conflicts with that by using 0xfffe instead. Regards, Alia On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com> wrote: > Could a look at the changes in draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-

Re: [OSPF] Deborah Brungard's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Could a look at the changes in draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-14 happen? Also, it would be good to get feedback from TEAS on this document and any concerns. Thanks, Alia On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:01 PM, Deborah Brungard wrote: > Deborah Brungard has entered the following

[OSPF] Link-State Routing WG charter

Here is the proposed charter for the LSR working group that will be created from the SPF and ISIS working groups. This is scheduled for internal review for the IESG telechat on February 8. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lsr/ The Link-State Routing (LSR) Working Group is chartered

Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter

ated list. > > I would have thought that "LSR can coordinate with CCAMP and BIER on their > extensions " should have been more directive. > > - Stewart > > > On 24/01/2018 17:18, Alia Atlas wrote: > > Here is the proposed charter for the LSR workin

Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter

on their extensions to the LSR IGPs as applicable to LSR protocol operation and scale. LSR-WG should coordinate with other WGs as needed. = Regards, Alia On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com> wrote: > Andrew, > > > I like that improvement.

[OSPF] early proposed charter for the Link-State Routing WG

I am working on the initial charter for the LSR WG, which will combine the OSPF and ISIS WGs. At this time, I do not see moving the fast-reroute work from RTGWG, but I am willing to hear opinions. In general, feedback on what areas should be the initial focus or specific concerns on scoping

[OSPF] OSPF WG Closing (work to LSR)

As I expect you have seen, the charter for the Link-State Routing (lsr) WG has been approved and the lsr WG now exists. All subscribers to the ospf mailing list have been subscribed to the lsr mailing list. OSPF WG drafts that are already in the RFC Editor's queue will remain as being published