From nobody Fri Jul 17 13:04:40 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F1D21A1A02 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 13:04:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 97wsGi-X_Ovj for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 13:04:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E5AE1A19F2 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 13:04:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=104; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1437163478; x=1438373078; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Y2JL7puFr3z0nwJCsg4le9gbB1eL48sruXp/BZxSeqw=; b=GTZdv6WDoaM/p5ScFi1S7EfziN7SQIaRho8NDGh+WjW2h1m2YAiVtfu4 JGLmQNdxU09gXlCqDZHVCVJ5SmEWowDKN59oC0EkyaUkfoSrIZQs5uJ4Y DodGlWgMcLCf7VB+p5ra1N9HU1SWr8g1tDF+B9TplPbYeXFSG9UxpuyJZ c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CmAwCPX6lV/4MNJK1agxOBQ4MduEAJiAqBLTgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhCojEVcBIgImAgQwFRIEiEGqUY9flgkBAQEHAQEBAR6BIpIfgUMFlEwBjB6BQ4QZj0aDYSZjgxmCNoEEAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,497,1432598400"; d="scan'208";a="16409754" Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Jul 2015 20:04:32 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com [173.37.183.77]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t6HK4WQ8022998 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 20:04:32 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.37]) by xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([173.37.183.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 15:04:31 -0500 From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" To: OSPF WG List Thread-Topic: Slides for IETF 93 Thread-Index: AQHQwMvKrbL9KxL70UuMu5va9CBtbA== Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 20:04:31 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.198] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <9A66D67A1610634B82C7BBC5F4833E16@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [OSPF] Slides for IETF 93 X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 20:04:39 -0000 UHJlc2VudGVycywgDQpQbGVhc2Ugc2VuZCBtZSB5b3VyIHNsaWRlcyBmb3IgSUVURiA5My4NClRo YW5rcywNCkFjZWUgDQoNCg0K From nobody Wed Jul 22 11:16:31 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C8421A1BA9; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:16:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0avdR7DdnhGQ; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:16:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AF9A1A1F04; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:16:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1158; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1437588986; x=1438798586; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=8ST/dThqJRmIegvV+JNIPza3gkfe/yWMzMLp+suq810=; b=Di04gHKehuFATg+ljpHlUc0mUgH9FeX1cT5UNJIT1jPN1Oe87inihyCh KrwDJUcLhzq2Dk+7EYFXWMUQYijaKW12ySHQmYB+h3kxITrVaeiZMrDla hfFT8AOcmFoahVOhf2L/9a7ecDr50Ub0aFry0LPZBxnEFoA6rrni8Kj/Z Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AfAwAR3a9V/5FdJa1bgxVUaQatFY5iCYFrCoU3SgKBUDgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhCMBAQEDAQEBARodNAsQAgEIGB4QJwslAgQOBYgmCA3NYwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARMEi0yCFIIZJjMHgxeBFAWUVwGMMYFDhB2PUYNhJoN8b4EEQ4EEAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,524,1432598400"; d="scan'208";a="171322495" Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Jul 2015 18:16:25 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t6MIGOW7008946 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 22 Jul 2015 18:16:24 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.72]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:16:24 -0500 From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" To: "" Thread-Topic: [spring] working group last call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing Thread-Index: AQHQxIAshL2DLlg120aA/7I81Ib0yp3oH+CA Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 18:16:23 +0000 Message-ID: <4CC5C40F-7C17-4117-A9EA-8FB32408E8FC@cisco.com> References: <52A3B956-E9BD-4503-9DDD-D40314B93509@juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <52A3B956-E9BD-4503-9DDD-D40314B93509@juniper.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.67.209] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <6A17946B7468AB4C9EF036173A0967B3@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "" , "<6man@ietf.org>" <6man@ietf.org>, "" , "" Subject: Re: [OSPF] [spring] working group last call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 18:16:29 -0000 On Jul 22, 2015, at 3:12 PM, John G. Scudder wrote: > Dear SPRING WG (and cc MPLS, OSPF, IS-IS, 6MAN, please include SPRING in = replies per the reply-to): >=20 > As we discussed at the SPRING meeting yesterday, working group last call = has been requested for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing. Please reply to t= he list with your comments, including although not limited to whether or no= t you support advancing the document to RFC. Non-authors are especially enc= ouraged to comment. >=20 > In consideration of the fact that a number of WG calls are going on concu= rrently, we will end the call on August 31, 2015.=20 >=20 > Authors, please indicate whether you are aware of any relevant IPR and if= so, whether it has been disclosed. (Please do this even if you've done it = before, thanks for your help.) as co-author I confirm IPR has been already disclosed for draft-ietf-spring= -segment-routing. thanks. s. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > --Bruno and John >=20 > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring From nobody Thu Jul 23 00:58:22 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4F7C1A8A77; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:58:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.909 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3bhBnFr69yxQ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:58:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cappuccino.rob.sh (cappuccino.rob.sh [IPv6:2a03:9800:10:4c::cafe:b00c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B0181A8A55; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:58:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [109.144.254.21] (helo=corretto.local) by cappuccino.rob.sh with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1ZIBO7-000255-Qs; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:57:55 +0100 Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:58:02 +0100 From: Rob Shakir To: "John G. Scudder" , spring@ietf.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <52A3B956-E9BD-4503-9DDD-D40314B93509@juniper.net> References: <52A3B956-E9BD-4503-9DDD-D40314B93509@juniper.net> X-Mailer: Airmail (303) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="55b09e8a_22de06fe_17e" Archived-At: Cc: ospf@ietf.org, isis@ietf.org, 6man@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OSPF] [spring] working group last call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 07:58:15 -0000 --55b09e8a_22de06fe_17e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Hi Bruno, John, Whilst I=E2=80=99m an author =E2=80=94 I=E2=80=99ll still comment here. I= t would be good to see the SPRING WG finalise this document. Rapid progre= ss is being made to multi-vendor implementations within live networks of = the SPRING technology. It would be good to start getting documents such a= s this one - which underpins many of the other standards for SR published= . On 22 July 2015 at 14:13:06, John G. Scudder (jgs=40juniper.net) wrote: Authors, please indicate whether you are aware of any relevant IPR and if= so, whether it has been disclosed. (Please do this even if you've done i= t before, thanks for your help.)=C2=A0 I=E2=80=99m not aware of IPR other than that which has already been discl= osed on this document. Cheers=21 r. --55b09e8a_22de06fe_17e Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline

I am not aware of any IPR= related to this document.

 <= /p>

Regards,

Trilok<= /p>

 <= /p>

 <= /p>

From: Acee Lin= dem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 6:26 AM
To: draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator@tools.ietf.org; Sam Aldrin Cc: OSPF WG List
Subject: IPR on OSPF extensions to advertise S-BFD Target Discrimina= tor

 

Authors, 

Please indicate whether or not you are aware of any IPR on the subject
document. 

 

 

Thanks,

Acee 

--_000_26E26CC265CF524F9DF52B85C4E50CBB1F7375D0SG70XWXCHMBA03z_-- From nobody Wed Jul 29 03:00:45 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A1E11A01E2 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 03:00:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id keTp8Jb-exwq for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 03:00:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C232F1A010D for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 03:00:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2325; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1438164041; x=1439373641; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=i5+18+M+jNueeVxQo5q2HmGRlh9QXBufgb/5XYgXjAE=; b=TM51tlCH1A5K0/InjXE31o1Hpn/8u2GJcRokIjke4KYszJVl4a0sPgTX PoThurZPCeFsd0bsdXc0WlE4cR416h+ELMaCPTeOX3RbbPLdFJtah9RAQ DDFgu4d3X6Uj2B1oSNfZ4L44FgUT1A/7UVXI8e1uWfHTU+0eTYFOwuSYl g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AdAwC/o7hV/5hdJa1bgxVUWg+8AgmCAYV5AoFSOBQBAQEBAQEBgQqEJAEBBHkQAgEIBAE6BzIUEQIEDgWILg3PAAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARMEi06FAwQHgxiBFAWRb4J9AYR4h0qBRYQfk0smZIMZb4JMAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.15,569,1432598400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="19658582" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jul 2015 10:00:41 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com [173.36.12.76]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t6TA0fbW014830 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:00:41 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.220]) by xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com ([173.36.12.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 05:00:40 -0500 From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" Thread-Topic: IPR on OSPF extensions to advertise S-BFD Target Discriminator Thread-Index: AQHQyZlfW1HZRK1D5kWNeTcmSJI38p3yN6b6 Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:00:39 +0000 Message-ID: <35B4989E-A2BE-425F-8E33-DAF0323E9441@cisco.com> References: <96828C69-5FBD-404F-83E3-0717461B226F@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <96828C69-5FBD-404F-83E3-0717461B226F@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_35B4989EA2BE425F8E33DAF0323E9441ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: OSPF WG List , "draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OSPF] IPR on OSPF extensions to advertise S-BFD Target Discriminator X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:00:43 -0000 --_000_35B4989EA2BE425F8E33DAF0323E9441ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Acee, I am not aware of any IPR on this document. Thanks! Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro. Excuze typofraphicak errows On Jul 29, 2015, at 02:56, Acee Lindem (acee) > wrote: 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 --_000_35B4989EA2BE425F8E33DAF0323E9441ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Acee,

I am not aware of any IPR on this document. 

Thanks!

Excuze typofraphicak errows

On Jul 29, 2015, at 02:56, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:

Authors, 

Please indicate whether or not you are aware of any IPR on the subject
document. 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iet= f-ospf-sbfd-discriminator/

Thanks,
Acee 
--_000_35B4989EA2BE425F8E33DAF0323E9441ciscocom_-- From nobody Thu Jul 30 12:22:25 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 555351A905C; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:22:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BCODECejr7e0; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:22:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-x230.google.com (mail-oi0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEABE1A8A1D; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:22:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by oihq81 with SMTP id q81so27272037oih.2; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:22:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=CwQcrpa4cS/2FqK0QAhU2NpcmKkvK3Vchawre6P3Cak=; b=kc2CSgqSQ0Jh7HEodP+5eocK/GswznJCJcKwZvIdsMo1gZKqGaZa8mCRyGruVW5RdO e287oLMTYiuIWssGgq+g8HtbSyxLEZE7IQw8+xQyLp+WUV/VvZ7pQ1zVwRZAk17aLPTq acgRVJtozedTZaPG51kBjLwAi662wP/NxKD93ktIQ3ME2PDarkQDbptC1BXVsFPygxLl QwXr60cBs/C11UzwLJxhtyXL/jsEMraf1A0w3oszAlBXMEAv0HQK7lcImvDlcTck6TcU ZXsyWCpeyD1gcgizNQkQ9GxKI/095NLpRJoMZp+aJzjKcVpV/mGObr2e3lLZ3fvrNNGa zj6A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.175.199 with SMTP id y190mr9961043oie.22.1438284138324; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:22:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.60.41.99 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:22:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:22:18 -0400 Message-ID: From: Alia Atlas To: draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr@ietf.org, OSPF List , shraddha Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ceca426a818051c1c9fe9 Archived-At: Subject: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-06 X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 19:22:24 -0000 --001a113ceca426a818051c1c9fe9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 minor issues on the draft - but all on the level of clarifications. Therefore, I have requested that IETF Last Call be started. Assuming good responsiveness on the part of the authors, a revised version that addresses my concerns can be on the IESG telechat on August 20. I do note that there are 6 authors on this draft. Please provide input - since I know that you all well aware that the limit is normally at most 5. One can identify a primary editor or two. This isn't pure process; the more authors listed on a draft, the longer it takes to handle AUTH48 - particularly when some are not as involved and do not respond rapidly and with full context. I make no judgement about the authors of this draft - who have clearly moved from pulling out the idea into a stand-alone draft and had a number of different implementations. My review comments are below. Thanks again for your hard work in getting this far! Minor issues: 1) On p. 6, it says " AF Address family for the prefix. Currently, the only supported value is 0 for IPv4 unicast." Please clarify VERY CLEARLY why this restriction exists. Not everyone reading this will be familiar with support for IPv6 in various protocols and we are really finally heading towards lots more IPv6. 2) On p. 6 and 8.: "The Instance field is an arbitrary value used to maintain multiple Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs. A maximum of 16777216 Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs may be sourced by a single OSPF instance.": This doesn't really give normative behavior. I assume that what you mean is that the advertising router has a number space for the Instance which has no significance outside of that advertising router and can have arbitrary values allocated from it. Each of these LSAs is identified uniquely by its Instance number. Please provide good text for what MUST be done and indicate that the value may be used for tie-breaking ("In this case, the Extended-Prefix-TLV in the Extended Prefix Opaque LSA with the smallest Instance is used by receiving OSPFv2 Routers. ") and there's an assumption that the values will be allocated from smallest to largest. 3) On p. 6 for the Route Type, it would be useful to have a reference to where these type values are pulled from. I'd also like to see some text about whether other values could be valid in the future and how so. For instance, I'm assuming that you are basically pulling the values from the OSPFv2 Link State (LS) Type ( http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xhtml#ospfv2-parameters-5 ) - so perhaps you could simply say so or clarify for what are valid values. 4) On p. 9: For Link-Type, could you also put a reference to the IANA registry? I'd prefer it to be clear that if (unlikely as it seems) there were a new Link-Type added, it would apply here too. 5) In Sec 5, pleaes add an RFC Editor note that Section 5 will be removed upon publication. That's the intent wtih RFC 6982. Thanks for including this section in the draft. If the information wants to move to the OSPF WG wiki, that would give it a place to survive after this draft is submitted to the RFC Editor. Nits: 6) In Sec 2, there's an "e.g., mapping server deployment". Could you add a reference? This tells me nothing... 7) In Sec 2, In the packet format, could you clarify Opaque type = 7? Same for on p.8 for opaque type = 8 ? 8) Since you are creating the registry for the TLVs, please clearly state that value 1 is being used earlier - instead of "suggested value" as on p.9 Regards, Alia --001a113ceca426a818051c1c9fe9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As is customary, I have done my AD review of=C2=A0draft-ie= tf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-06 before asking for IETF Last Call.=C2=A0 First, = thank you very much for your hard work on this draft.=C2=A0 It is lovely to= see needed work move quickly and have numerous interoperable implementatio= ns.

I do have a number of minor issues on the draft - bu= t all on the level of clarifications.=C2=A0 Therefore, I have requested tha= t IETF Last Call be started.=C2=A0 Assuming good responsiveness on the part= of the authors, a revised version that addresses my concerns can be on the= IESG telechat on August 20.

I do note that there = are 6 authors on this draft.=C2=A0 Please provide input - since I know that= you all well aware that the limit is normally at most 5.=C2=A0 One can ide= ntify a primary editor or two.=C2=A0 This isn't pure process; the more = authors listed on a draft, the longer it takes to handle AUTH48 - particula= rly when some are not as involved and do not respond rapidly and with full = context.=C2=A0 I make no judgement about the authors of this draft - who ha= ve clearly moved from pulling out the idea into a stand-alone draft and had= a number of different implementations.

My review = comments are below. =C2=A0 Thanks again for your hard work in getting this = far!

Minor issues:

1= ) On p. 6, it says " AF Address family for the prefix.=C2=A0 Currently= , the
only supported value is 0 for IPv4 unicast." =C2=A0Ple= ase clarify VERY
CLEARLY why this restriction exists.=C2=A0 Not e= veryone reading this will
be familiar with support for IPv6 in va= rious protocols and we are really
finally heading towards lots mo= re IPv6.

2) On p. 6 and 8.:
"The In= stance field is an arbitrary value used to maintain multiple
Exte= nded Prefix Opaque LSAs.=C2=A0 A maximum of 16777216 Extended Prefix
<= div>Opaque LSAs may be sourced by a single OSPF instance.": This doesn= 't
really give normative behavior.=C2=A0 I assume that what y= ou mean is that
the advertising router has a number space for the= Instance which has
no significance outside of that advertising r= outer and can have
arbitrary values allocated from it.=C2=A0 Each= of these LSAs is identified
uniquely by its Instance number.=C2= =A0 Please provide good text for what
MUST be done and indicate t= hat the value may be used for tie-breaking
("In this case, t= he Extended-Prefix-TLV in the Extended Prefix Opaque
LSA with the= smallest Instance is used by receiving OSPFv2 Routers. ")
a= nd there's an assumption that the values will be allocated from
smallest to largest.

3) On p. 6 for the Route T= ype, it would be useful to have a reference to
where these type v= alues are pulled from.=C2=A0 I'd also like to see some
text a= bout whether other values could be valid in the future and how
so= .=C2=A0 For instance, I'm assuming that you are basically pulling the
values from the OSPFv2 Link State (LS) Type
- so perhaps you coul= d simply say so or clarify for what are valid
values.
<= br>
4) On p. 9: For Link-Type, could you also put a reference to = the IANA
registry?=C2=A0 I'd prefer it to be clear that if (u= nlikely as it seems)
there were a new Link-Type added, it would a= pply here too.

5) In Sec 5, pleaes add an RFC Edit= or note that Section 5 will be removed
upon publication.=C2=A0 Th= at's the intent wtih RFC 6982.=C2=A0 Thanks for
including thi= s section in the draft.=C2=A0 If the information wants to move
to= the OSPF WG wiki, that would give it a place to survive after this
draft is submitted to the RFC Editor.

Nits:

6) In Sec 2, there's an "e.g., mapping serve= r deployment".=C2=A0 Could you add
a reference?=C2=A0 This t= ells me nothing...

7) In Sec 2, In the packet form= at, could you clarify Opaque type =3D 7? Same
for on p.8 for opaq= ue type =3D 8 ?

8) Since you are creating the regi= stry for the TLVs, please clearly state
that value 1 is being use= d earlier - instead of "suggested value" as
on p.9

Regards,
Alia
--001a113ceca426a818051c1c9fe9-- From nobody Thu Jul 30 14:00:56 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 186EA1A9074; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:00:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NflvefnfueHT; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:00:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F37BE1A8A98; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:00:51 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.2.0.p3 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Sender: Message-ID: <20150730210051.28897.40534.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:00:51 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: ospf@ietf.org Subject: [OSPF] Last Call: (OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Advertisement) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 21:00:54 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Open Shortest Path First IGP WG (ospf) to consider the following document: - 'OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Advertisement' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-08-13. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract OSPFv2 requires functional extension beyond what can readily be done with the fixed-format Link State Advertisements (LSAs) as described in RFC 2328. This document defines OSPF opaque LSAs based on Type- Length-Value (TLV) tuples that can be used to associate additional attributes with prefixes or links. Dependent on the application, these prefixes and links may or not be advertised in the fixed-format LSAs. The OSPF opaque LSAs are optional and fully backward compatible. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From nobody Fri Jul 31 04:01:22 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95C4E1A02F1; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 04:01:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XiQTzAC7M5iU; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 04:01:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0148.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.148]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61CD91A0282; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 04:01:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.160.107.139) by BY1PR0501MB1430.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.160.107.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.225.19; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:01:16 +0000 Received: from BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.107.139]) by BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.107.139]) with mapi id 15.01.0225.018; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:01:16 +0000 From: Shraddha Hegde To: "isis-wg@ietf.org" , "ospf@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-hegde-rtgwg-virtual-multi-instance-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHQs66bjndEXI5cGUm8GYEYTERxKp3F974ggC+bduA= Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:01:15 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20150701033244.19504.31237.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; x-originating-ip: [116.197.184.10] x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BY1PR0501MB1430; 5:3lRRT911WFwhMFWUGsrUsuQm+MJQc2GzQ54Q7WvkSg7P6DVweVgxndnjq9xO/TCDz45h8OVr1dfN1VA1Qvqs8iVTfkSdpd3B8oxv8LAlYKCrY7T2sHOkTi97hd31pSlu4EE/JQ0Hm6U1DHlwIZunNA==; 24:ran7Bu6zoLToky8krN8CGLHhhPUgBdNw0GZs4bcb5yGujEW1y1hxWh998TUysbUNi7UcXfLXUzDB4o5bQtZSF/ecaFIlC9LrT+i6HYFB3XQ=; 20:4FBKstfPF+QEQi9CTqmBr1KmwWXSImvOqi7gl9uLfGO/BxvBectakUQGvK3Oq4FhfLj/waJV7pA+/jK9VyUPMA== x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1430; by1pr0501mb1430: X-MS-Exchange-Organization-RulesExecuted x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5005006)(3002001); SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1430; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1430; x-forefront-prvs: 0654257CF5 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(377454003)(377424004)(13464003)(107886002)(76576001)(87936001)(76176999)(77096005)(50986999)(54356999)(86362001)(2656002)(40100003)(92566002)(19580395003)(5001770100001)(122556002)(106116001)(46102003)(15975445007)(19580405001)(74316001)(62966003)(33656002)(5001960100002)(5002640100001)(102836002)(77156002)(99286002)(189998001)(2501003)(2900100001)(230783001)(5003600100002)(66066001)(2950100001)(4001430100001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1430; H:BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 31 Jul 2015 11:01:15.9108 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY1PR0501MB1430 Archived-At: Cc: Alia Atlas , "Venkatesan, Mannan" , Salih K A Subject: [OSPF] FW: New Version Notification for draft-hegde-rtgwg-virtual-multi-instance-00.txt X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:01:20 -0000 Dear OSPF/ ISIS WG members, The below internet draft posted in RTGWG provides mechanisms to contain fl= ooding information in OSPF and ISIS. There are no protocol changes but there are rules and default behaviors de= fined for OSPF and ISIS and needs to be followed by neighboring routers to interoperate. Kindly review and provide inputs and suggestions. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-rtgwg-virtual-multi-instance/ Rgds Shraddha -----Original Message----- From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shraddha Hegde Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 9:13 AM To: rtgwg@ietf.org Cc: Ross Callon ; Salih K A ; Manna= n Venkatesan ; Alia Atlas Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-hegde-rtgwg-virtual-multi-i= nstance-00.txt All, A new internet draft is posted which provides a mechanism to contain floodi= ng information for link state protocols for specific topologies. Kindly review and provide your suggestions. Rgds Shraddha -----Original Message----- From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 9:03 AM To: Shraddha Hegde; Ross Callon; Alia Atlas; Shraddha Hegde; Alia Atlas; Ma= nnan Venkatesan; Ross Callon; Mannan Venkatesan Subject: New Version Notification for draft-hegde-rtgwg-virtual-multi-insta= nce-00.txt A new version of I-D, draft-hegde-rtgwg-virtual-multi-instance-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Shraddha Hegde and posted to the IETF re= pository. Name: draft-hegde-rtgwg-virtual-multi-instance Revision: 00 Title: Virtual multi-instancing for link state protocols Document date: 2015-06-30 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 15 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hegde-rtgwg-virt= ual-multi-instance-00.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-rtgwg-virtual-= multi-instance/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hegde-rtgwg-virtual-multi= -instance-00 Abstract: In networks with routers of different capabilities, some routers may not be able to participate fully in supporting new features or handling large databases and the associated flooding. In some cases, these restrictions can cause severe scalability issues for the network in general. This document proposes virtual multi-instances, a generic mechanism for OSPF and IS-IS, that allows groups of routers in specific topologies to have a reduced database and reduces the topology changes that are seen. The virtual multi-instances are specified so that no software or protocol changes are required in the restricted routers. Due to the potential number of virtual multi- instances in a network, the configuration is limited and is not specified per virtual instance. = =20 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio= n until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg