Eric
To be more concrete about the changes I propose to this I-D, after some
off-list discussion.
This I-D should ask IANA to insert the name
tunnelType Definitions
at the URL
https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-numbe
rs-6:
to make it clear that this is the
- Original Message -
From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)"
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 8:07 AM
> Dear all,
>
> Thank you again for the review.
>
> After discussion with Dave Thaler (who maintains the tunnel type IANA
registry), it appears that the draft can go forward without waiting for
a
Thanks, Eric & Dave.
--
Cheers,
Rajiv
From: Eric Vyncke
Date: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 3:07 AM
To: David Black , "tsv-...@ietf.org"
Cc: Softwires-wg list , IETF Discussion ,
"draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel-04
Dear all,
Thank you again for the review.
After discussion with Dave Thaler (who maintains the tunnel type IANA
registry), it appears that the draft can go forward without waiting for a
complete IANA registry for tunnel types.
Best regards
-éric
On 08/05/2019, 00:45, "David Black via
Hi Eric, all,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Eric Vyncke (evyncke) [mailto:evyn...@cisco.com]
> Envoyé : vendredi 17 mai 2019 17:29
> À : Black, David; BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; tsv-...@ietf.org
> Cc : softwires@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org;
Excellent news! So, this could move much faster than I was afraid of.
-éric
On 17/05/2019, 17:31, "Suresh Krishnan" wrote:
Hi Éric,
Just responding to one point.
> On May 17, 2019, at 11:29 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
wrote:
>
> Dan and David, I took the liberty to
Hi Éric,
Just responding to one point.
> On May 17, 2019, at 11:29 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
>
> Dan and David, I took the liberty to add you to the discussion as
> draft-thaler-iftype-reg could be a way forward.
>
> David, thank you for your review and the raised point.
>
> Tom,
Dan and David, I took the liberty to add you to the discussion as
draft-thaler-iftype-reg could be a way forward.
David, thank you for your review and the raised point.
Tom, and Magnus, thank you as well for being part of the discussion.
David, I see your point about referring to an 'outdated
Hi Tom,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : tom petch [mailto:daedu...@btconnect.com]
> Envoyé : jeudi 9 mai 2019 18:13
> À : Black, David; BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; tsv-...@ietf.org
> Cc : softwires@ietf.org; Black, David;
- Original Message -
From: "Black, David"
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2019 2:45 PM
> > [Med] The intent of the draft is to reflect the current registered
tunnels types.
> ...
> > [Med] Registering new tunnel types is not in the scope set for this
draft.
>
> I understand that, but as stated
Re-,
I agree with you that many tunneling schemes are not present in the IANA
registry but is that a problem? I don't think so because registrations are for
a reason.
The natural way from where I sit is that any specification that, for example,
defines a specific YANG module for a tunneling
> [Med] The intent of the draft is to reflect the current registered tunnels
> types.
...
> [Med] Registering new tunnel types is not in the scope set for this draft.
I understand that, but as stated in the review, I don't think that it's the
best course of action. The email below appears to
Hi David,
Thanks for your review and comments. QQ -
>My fundamental concern with this draft is that the MIB-2 tunnel type
>registry is seriously incomplete and out of date, as there are a large
>number of tunnel types that aren't included in that registry, e.g., IPsec
>tunnel-mode AMT tunneling.
As noted in the review:
The references section of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim/)
may help in identifying tunnel protocols that should be included.
Thanks, --David
From: Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
Sent: Wednesday, May 8,
Reviewer: David Black
Review result: Not Ready
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow
15 matches
Mail list logo
