From routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Wed Jan 29 15:49:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29516 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:49:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TL4AJ22340; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:04:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TKxAJ22134 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:59:10 -0500 Received: from nomad.tcb.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29121; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:37:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by nomad.tcb.net (Postfix, from userid 500) id 309D055F62; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:40:34 -0700 (MST) Received: from nomad.tcb.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomad.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FFD33E83; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:40:34 -0700 (MST) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Mailing List , idr@merit.edu, isis-wg@ietf.org, routing-discussion@ietf.org From: Danny McPherson Reply-To: danny@tcb.net Subject: GR/NSF Terminology Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <20030129204034.309D055F62@nomad.tcb.net> Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:40:29 -0700 [Folks, notice the cross-post... Perhaps routing-discussion@ietf.org should be the only one to receive replies, please try to respect this]. I think it'd be a good thing for all of the GR/NSF protocol extensions to employ a common set of terminology, instead of each using your own. I believe the OSPF *WG* document currently does the best job with defining terms, etc.., although I'm not sure it's sufficient or accommodates everything. I'd be willing to work on a "generic document" if need be, or would be happy if the current protocol-specific documents (i.e., BGP, IS-IS, OSPF, LDP, RSVP (dead?), VPN stuff, other?) would make some attempt to use the same terms. Any comments? -danny > This is the start of a Working Group last call for > draft-ietf-ospf-hitless-restart-05.txt, OSPF Hitless Restart. > All comments must be sent to the OSPF list by Friday, > February 8th, 2003. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-hitless-restart-05.txt > > My previous list posting on this WG last call was lost or > filtering. My apologies if this is a duplicate. > > Thanks, > Acee & Rohit > -- > Acee _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 29 15:51:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29572 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:51:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0TLDGV23450 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:13:16 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TL4AJ22340; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:04:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TKxAJ22134 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:59:10 -0500 Received: from nomad.tcb.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29121; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:37:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by nomad.tcb.net (Postfix, from userid 500) id 309D055F62; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:40:34 -0700 (MST) Received: from nomad.tcb.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomad.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FFD33E83; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:40:34 -0700 (MST) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Mailing List , idr@merit.edu, isis-wg@ietf.org, routing-discussion@ietf.org From: Danny McPherson Reply-To: danny@tcb.net Subject: GR/NSF Terminology Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <20030129204034.309D055F62@nomad.tcb.net> Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:40:29 -0700 [Folks, notice the cross-post... Perhaps routing-discussion@ietf.org should be the only one to receive replies, please try to respect this]. I think it'd be a good thing for all of the GR/NSF protocol extensions to employ a common set of terminology, instead of each using your own. I believe the OSPF *WG* document currently does the best job with defining terms, etc.., although I'm not sure it's sufficient or accommodates everything. I'd be willing to work on a "generic document" if need be, or would be happy if the current protocol-specific documents (i.e., BGP, IS-IS, OSPF, LDP, RSVP (dead?), VPN stuff, other?) would make some attempt to use the same terms. Any comments? -danny > This is the start of a Working Group last call for > draft-ietf-ospf-hitless-restart-05.txt, OSPF Hitless Restart. > All comments must be sent to the OSPF list by Friday, > February 8th, 2003. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-hitless-restart-05.txt > > My previous list posting on this WG last call was lost or > filtering. My apologies if this is a duplicate. > > Thanks, > Acee & Rohit > -- > Acee _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 30 01:03:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09594 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 01:03:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0U5aFe22949 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 00:36:15 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U5RcJ22460; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 00:27:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U5OdJ22370 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 00:24:39 -0500 Received: from nomad.tcb.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08408 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 00:02:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by nomad.tcb.net (Postfix, from userid 500) id 833F955F62; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:05:56 -0700 (MST) Received: from nomad.tcb.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomad.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8031E3E83 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:05:56 -0700 (MST) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: routing-discussion@ietf.org From: Danny McPherson Reply-To: danny@tcb.net Subject: Re: GR/NSF Terminology Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <20030130050556.833F955F62@nomad.tcb.net> Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:05:51 -0700 > What are the terms/definitions that need to be common across the various > protocol documents? Minimally, I'd include: > : > - hitless restart (aka, graceful restart :^) > - planned restart > - unplanned restart I was thinking these, for starters, then including the general concepts in addition to the terms.. Some things that immediately come to mind: hitless restart, graceful restart, non-stop forwarding, helper mode, rx-only mode, helper neighbor, Grace periods, Restart reasons, Restart Support, intervals, etc.. All the intervals could be aligned to make things more intuitive. Clearly, the bits stuff needs to remain the protocol-specific documents but aligning terminology, deployment extensions, security considerations (e.g., seq numbers with MD5 signatures), caveats (e.g., potential problems with supporting unplanned restarts), etc.. would seem to me to be useful. -danny _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 30 01:08:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09751 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 01:08:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0U5GNS22044 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 00:16:23 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U57lJ21740; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 00:07:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U52WJ20901 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 00:02:32 -0500 Received: from prattle.redback.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08093 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:40:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from redback.com (login001.redback.com [155.53.12.18]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A153E45FB33 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:43:23 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3E38AD2A.8030308@redback.com> From: Acee Lindem User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Re: GR/NSF Terminology References: <20030129204034.309D055F62@nomad.tcb.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:42:18 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Danny McPherson wrote: > [Folks, notice the cross-post... Perhaps routing-discussion@ietf.org > should be the only one to receive replies, please try to respect this]. > > I think it'd be a good thing for all of the GR/NSF protocol extensions > to employ a common set of terminology, instead of each using your own. > I believe the OSPF *WG* document currently does the best job with defining > terms, etc.., although I'm not sure it's sufficient or accommodates > everything. > > I'd be willing to work on a "generic document" if need be, or would > be happy if the current protocol-specific documents (i.e., BGP, IS-IS, > OSPF, LDP, RSVP (dead?), VPN stuff, other?) would make some attempt to > use the same terms. Hi Danny, What are the terms/definitions that need to be common across the various protocol documents? Minimally, I'd include: : - hitless restart (aka, graceful restart :^) - planned restart - unplanned restart Thanks, Acee > > Any comments? > > -danny > > >>This is the start of a Working Group last call for >>draft-ietf-ospf-hitless-restart-05.txt, OSPF Hitless Restart. >>All comments must be sent to the OSPF list by Friday, >>February 8th, 2003. >> >>A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-hitless-restart-05.txt >> >>My previous list posting on this WG last call was lost or >>filtering. My apologies if this is a duplicate. >> >>Thanks, >>Acee & Rohit >>-- >>Acee > > > > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > -- Acee _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Thu Jan 30 01:14:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09934 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 01:14:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U57lJ21740; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 00:07:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U52WJ20901 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 00:02:32 -0500 Received: from prattle.redback.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08093 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:40:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from redback.com (login001.redback.com [155.53.12.18]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A153E45FB33 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:43:23 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3E38AD2A.8030308@redback.com> From: Acee Lindem User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Re: GR/NSF Terminology References: <20030129204034.309D055F62@nomad.tcb.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:42:18 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Danny McPherson wrote: > [Folks, notice the cross-post... Perhaps routing-discussion@ietf.org > should be the only one to receive replies, please try to respect this]. > > I think it'd be a good thing for all of the GR/NSF protocol extensions > to employ a common set of terminology, instead of each using your own. > I believe the OSPF *WG* document currently does the best job with defining > terms, etc.., although I'm not sure it's sufficient or accommodates > everything. > > I'd be willing to work on a "generic document" if need be, or would > be happy if the current protocol-specific documents (i.e., BGP, IS-IS, > OSPF, LDP, RSVP (dead?), VPN stuff, other?) would make some attempt to > use the same terms. Hi Danny, What are the terms/definitions that need to be common across the various protocol documents? Minimally, I'd include: : - hitless restart (aka, graceful restart :^) - planned restart - unplanned restart Thanks, Acee > > Any comments? > > -danny > > >>This is the start of a Working Group last call for >>draft-ietf-ospf-hitless-restart-05.txt, OSPF Hitless Restart. >>All comments must be sent to the OSPF list by Friday, >>February 8th, 2003. >> >>A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-hitless-restart-05.txt >> >>My previous list posting on this WG last call was lost or >>filtering. My apologies if this is a duplicate. >> >>Thanks, >>Acee & Rohit >>-- >>Acee > > > > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > -- Acee _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Thu Jan 30 02:35:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA21509 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 02:35:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U5RcJ22460; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 00:27:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0U5OdJ22370 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 00:24:39 -0500 Received: from nomad.tcb.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08408 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 00:02:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by nomad.tcb.net (Postfix, from userid 500) id 833F955F62; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:05:56 -0700 (MST) Received: from nomad.tcb.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomad.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8031E3E83 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:05:56 -0700 (MST) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: routing-discussion@ietf.org From: Danny McPherson Reply-To: danny@tcb.net Subject: Re: GR/NSF Terminology Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <20030130050556.833F955F62@nomad.tcb.net> Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:05:51 -0700 > What are the terms/definitions that need to be common across the various > protocol documents? Minimally, I'd include: > : > - hitless restart (aka, graceful restart :^) > - planned restart > - unplanned restart I was thinking these, for starters, then including the general concepts in addition to the terms.. Some things that immediately come to mind: hitless restart, graceful restart, non-stop forwarding, helper mode, rx-only mode, helper neighbor, Grace periods, Restart reasons, Restart Support, intervals, etc.. All the intervals could be aligned to make things more intuitive. Clearly, the bits stuff needs to remain the protocol-specific documents but aligning terminology, deployment extensions, security considerations (e.g., seq numbers with MD5 signatures), caveats (e.g., potential problems with supporting unplanned restarts), etc.. would seem to me to be useful. -danny _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Thu Jan 30 07:06:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA25090 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:06:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UCKqJ26495; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:20:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UCESJ26189 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:14:28 -0500 Received: from sj-msg-core-2.cisco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA24735 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 06:52:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from cisco.com (router.cisco.com [171.69.182.20]) by sj-msg-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0UBtRsv028369; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 03:55:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from [193.0.9.198] (ssh-ams-1.cisco.com [144.254.74.55]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA25174; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 06:55:31 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jgs@127.0.0.1 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030129204034.309D055F62@nomad.tcb.net> References: <20030129204034.309D055F62@nomad.tcb.net> To: danny@tcb.net From: "John G. Scudder" Subject: Re: GR/NSF Terminology Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 04:38:37 -0500 Danny, The OSPF document you cite defines various terms, but in an OSPF-specific fashion. Furthermore, the definitions are not collected anywhere in the document but are peppered throughout it... which is fine in context but doesn't lend itself to generic use of the terms. Seems like there are two things we could do: First, leave the documents as they are. This is my preferred alternative. The docs are relatively well advanced in terms of specification and even deployment, and doing what would be a non-trivial update solely for the purpose of aligning terminology strikes me a being work for work's sake. This is doubly true because a major terminology change creates the risk of introducing subtle errors to the spec if one isn't careful. Apart from aesthetics, what need do you think is fulfilled by aligning the specs? Alternately, if we do want to go ahead and change the specs, then a (generic) definitions document such as you have volunteered to write seems a necessity. I'm not a fan of "framework" documents and I hope we could keep the scope of the proposed definitions document focused. By the way, I think "graceful restart" has historic precedence over "hitless restart" if you want to align terms :-). --John At 1:40 PM -0700 1/29/03, Danny McPherson wrote: >[Folks, notice the cross-post... Perhaps routing-discussion@ietf.org >should be the only one to receive replies, please try to respect this]. > >I think it'd be a good thing for all of the GR/NSF protocol extensions >to employ a common set of terminology, instead of each using your own. >I believe the OSPF *WG* document currently does the best job with defining >terms, etc.., although I'm not sure it's sufficient or accommodates >everything. > >I'd be willing to work on a "generic document" if need be, or would >be happy if the current protocol-specific documents (i.e., BGP, IS-IS, >OSPF, LDP, RSVP (dead?), VPN stuff, other?) would make some attempt to >use the same terms. > >Any comments? > >-danny > >> This is the start of a Working Group last call for >> draft-ietf-ospf-hitless-restart-05.txt, OSPF Hitless Restart. >> All comments must be sent to the OSPF list by Friday, >> February 8th, 2003. >> >> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-hitless-restart-05.txt >> >> My previous list posting on this WG last call was lost or >> filtering. My apologies if this is a duplicate. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee & Rohit >> -- >> Acee _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 30 07:08:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA25160 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:08:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0UCU0Q27090 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:30:00 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UCKqJ26495; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:20:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UCESJ26189 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:14:28 -0500 Received: from sj-msg-core-2.cisco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA24735 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 06:52:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from cisco.com (router.cisco.com [171.69.182.20]) by sj-msg-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0UBtRsv028369; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 03:55:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from [193.0.9.198] (ssh-ams-1.cisco.com [144.254.74.55]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA25174; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 06:55:31 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jgs@127.0.0.1 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030129204034.309D055F62@nomad.tcb.net> References: <20030129204034.309D055F62@nomad.tcb.net> To: danny@tcb.net From: "John G. Scudder" Subject: Re: GR/NSF Terminology Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 04:38:37 -0500 Danny, The OSPF document you cite defines various terms, but in an OSPF-specific fashion. Furthermore, the definitions are not collected anywhere in the document but are peppered throughout it... which is fine in context but doesn't lend itself to generic use of the terms. Seems like there are two things we could do: First, leave the documents as they are. This is my preferred alternative. The docs are relatively well advanced in terms of specification and even deployment, and doing what would be a non-trivial update solely for the purpose of aligning terminology strikes me a being work for work's sake. This is doubly true because a major terminology change creates the risk of introducing subtle errors to the spec if one isn't careful. Apart from aesthetics, what need do you think is fulfilled by aligning the specs? Alternately, if we do want to go ahead and change the specs, then a (generic) definitions document such as you have volunteered to write seems a necessity. I'm not a fan of "framework" documents and I hope we could keep the scope of the proposed definitions document focused. By the way, I think "graceful restart" has historic precedence over "hitless restart" if you want to align terms :-). --John At 1:40 PM -0700 1/29/03, Danny McPherson wrote: >[Folks, notice the cross-post... Perhaps routing-discussion@ietf.org >should be the only one to receive replies, please try to respect this]. > >I think it'd be a good thing for all of the GR/NSF protocol extensions >to employ a common set of terminology, instead of each using your own. >I believe the OSPF *WG* document currently does the best job with defining >terms, etc.., although I'm not sure it's sufficient or accommodates >everything. > >I'd be willing to work on a "generic document" if need be, or would >be happy if the current protocol-specific documents (i.e., BGP, IS-IS, >OSPF, LDP, RSVP (dead?), VPN stuff, other?) would make some attempt to >use the same terms. > >Any comments? > >-danny > >> This is the start of a Working Group last call for >> draft-ietf-ospf-hitless-restart-05.txt, OSPF Hitless Restart. >> All comments must be sent to the OSPF list by Friday, >> February 8th, 2003. >> >> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-hitless-restart-05.txt >> >> My previous list posting on this WG last call was lost or >> filtering. My apologies if this is a duplicate. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee & Rohit >> -- >> Acee _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Thu Jan 30 07:36:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA25502 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:36:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UCmcJ28382; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:48:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UCj2J28279 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:45:02 -0500 Received: from ernst.netinsight.se (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA25358 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:22:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (unverified [10.100.1.11]) by ernst.netinsight.se (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:25:58 +0100 Message-Id: <20030130.132558.102582010.magda@netinsight.net> To: jgs@cisco.com Cc: danny@tcb.net, routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Re: GR/NSF Terminology From: Magnus Danielson In-Reply-To: References: <20030129204034.309D055F62@nomad.tcb.net> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.2 on Emacs 21.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:25:58 +0100 (CET) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "John G. Scudder" Subject: Re: GR/NSF Terminology Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 04:38:37 -0500 > Danny, > > The OSPF document you cite defines various terms, but in an > OSPF-specific fashion. Furthermore, the definitions are not > collected anywhere in the document but are peppered throughout it... > which is fine in context but doesn't lend itself to generic use of > the terms. > > Seems like there are two things we could do: > > First, leave the documents as they are. This is my preferred > alternative. The docs are relatively well advanced in terms of > specification and even deployment, and doing what would be a > non-trivial update solely for the purpose of aligning terminology > strikes me a being work for work's sake. This is doubly true because > a major terminology change creates the risk of introducing subtle > errors to the spec if one isn't careful. Apart from aesthetics, what > need do you think is fulfilled by aligning the specs? > > Alternately, if we do want to go ahead and change the specs, then a > (generic) definitions document such as you have volunteered to write > seems a necessity. I'm not a fan of "framework" documents and I hope > we could keep the scope of the proposed definitions document focused. Writing a "generic" definition document isn't (or is, depending on your character) alot of fun. If you take a definition of some term from one document and think it is generic, then you will missinterprent tens or hundreds of other documents. When you are attempting to iron out a true generic definition of some term, you learn just how screwed vocabulary we use today, and that some expressions is grossly missinterprented and should not be in use. It is then sometimes better to have one generic term and then one or more specific definitions. Words like broadband, bandwidth and routing are among those which actually doesn't mean what the datacom-lingo in vouge gives them to mean. This just said as a kind warning on what a "generic" document approach actually would mean if taken seriously. Cheers, Magnus _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 30 07:37:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA25527 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:37:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0UCxQ028802 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:59:26 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UCmcJ28382; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:48:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UCj2J28279 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:45:02 -0500 Received: from ernst.netinsight.se (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA25358 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:22:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (unverified [10.100.1.11]) by ernst.netinsight.se (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:25:58 +0100 Message-Id: <20030130.132558.102582010.magda@netinsight.net> To: jgs@cisco.com Cc: danny@tcb.net, routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Re: GR/NSF Terminology From: Magnus Danielson In-Reply-To: References: <20030129204034.309D055F62@nomad.tcb.net> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.2 on Emacs 21.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:25:58 +0100 (CET) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "John G. Scudder" Subject: Re: GR/NSF Terminology Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 04:38:37 -0500 > Danny, > > The OSPF document you cite defines various terms, but in an > OSPF-specific fashion. Furthermore, the definitions are not > collected anywhere in the document but are peppered throughout it... > which is fine in context but doesn't lend itself to generic use of > the terms. > > Seems like there are two things we could do: > > First, leave the documents as they are. This is my preferred > alternative. The docs are relatively well advanced in terms of > specification and even deployment, and doing what would be a > non-trivial update solely for the purpose of aligning terminology > strikes me a being work for work's sake. This is doubly true because > a major terminology change creates the risk of introducing subtle > errors to the spec if one isn't careful. Apart from aesthetics, what > need do you think is fulfilled by aligning the specs? > > Alternately, if we do want to go ahead and change the specs, then a > (generic) definitions document such as you have volunteered to write > seems a necessity. I'm not a fan of "framework" documents and I hope > we could keep the scope of the proposed definitions document focused. Writing a "generic" definition document isn't (or is, depending on your character) alot of fun. If you take a definition of some term from one document and think it is generic, then you will missinterprent tens or hundreds of other documents. When you are attempting to iron out a true generic definition of some term, you learn just how screwed vocabulary we use today, and that some expressions is grossly missinterprented and should not be in use. It is then sometimes better to have one generic term and then one or more specific definitions. Words like broadband, bandwidth and routing are among those which actually doesn't mean what the datacom-lingo in vouge gives them to mean. This just said as a kind warning on what a "generic" document approach actually would mean if taken seriously. Cheers, Magnus _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Thu Jan 30 10:34:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01409 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:34:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UFUXJ08122; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:30:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UFQpJ07959 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:26:51 -0500 Received: from bridge.axiowave.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00922 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:23:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: Jeff Parker To: danny@tcb.net Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: RE: GR/NSF Terminology MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:26:44 -0500 Danny How far back will you go? Will you clear up the spelling of Routeing as well? - jeff parker _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 30 10:35:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01468 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:35:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0UFcSa09286 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:38:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UFUXJ08122; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:30:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UFQpJ07959 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:26:51 -0500 Received: from bridge.axiowave.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00922 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:23:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: Jeff Parker To: danny@tcb.net Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: RE: GR/NSF Terminology MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:26:44 -0500 Danny How far back will you go? Will you clear up the spelling of Routeing as well? - jeff parker _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Thu Jan 30 10:39:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01671 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:39:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UFa9J08535; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:36:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UFXvJ08365 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:33:57 -0500 Received: from nomad.tcb.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01170 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:30:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by nomad.tcb.net (Postfix, from userid 500) id 2735C55F62; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 08:34:03 -0700 (MST) Received: from nomad.tcb.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomad.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2663F3E83 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 08:34:03 -0700 (MST) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: routing-discussion@ietf.org From: Danny McPherson Reply-To: danny@tcb.net Subject: Re: GR/NSF Terminology Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <20030130153403.2735C55F62@nomad.tcb.net> Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 08:33:58 -0700 > The OSPF document you cite defines various terms, but in an > OSPF-specific fashion. Furthermore, the definitions are not > collected anywhere in the document but are peppered throughout it... > which is fine in context but doesn't lend itself to generic use of > the terms. Agreed. > Seems like there are two things we could do: > > First, leave the documents as they are. This is my preferred > alternative. The docs are relatively well advanced in terms of > specification and even deployment, and doing what would be a > non-trivial update solely for the purpose of aligning terminology > strikes me a being work for work's sake. This is doubly true because > a major terminology change creates the risk of introducing subtle > errors to the spec if one isn't careful. Apart from aesthetics, what > need do you think is fulfilled by aligning the specs? > > Alternately, if we do want to go ahead and change the specs, then a > (generic) definitions document such as you have volunteered to write > seems a necessity. I'm not a fan of "framework" documents and I hope > we could keep the scope of the proposed definitions document focused. OK, so folks don't seem to be to keen on the idea at this point. Given that I'm not attached to the idea of more work "for the sake of work" then I'll drop it. I believe there is room for commonality but look where that's got me in PWE3 *8^/ > By the way, I think "graceful restart" has historic precedence over > "hitless restart" if you want to align terms :-). Agreed. -danny _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 30 10:40:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01778 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:40:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0UFhrJ09612 for routing-discussion-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:43:53 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UFa9J08535; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:36:09 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UFXvJ08365 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:33:57 -0500 Received: from nomad.tcb.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01170 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:30:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by nomad.tcb.net (Postfix, from userid 500) id 2735C55F62; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 08:34:03 -0700 (MST) Received: from nomad.tcb.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomad.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2663F3E83 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 08:34:03 -0700 (MST) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: routing-discussion@ietf.org From: Danny McPherson Reply-To: danny@tcb.net Subject: Re: GR/NSF Terminology Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <20030130153403.2735C55F62@nomad.tcb.net> Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 08:33:58 -0700 > The OSPF document you cite defines various terms, but in an > OSPF-specific fashion. Furthermore, the definitions are not > collected anywhere in the document but are peppered throughout it... > which is fine in context but doesn't lend itself to generic use of > the terms. Agreed. > Seems like there are two things we could do: > > First, leave the documents as they are. This is my preferred > alternative. The docs are relatively well advanced in terms of > specification and even deployment, and doing what would be a > non-trivial update solely for the purpose of aligning terminology > strikes me a being work for work's sake. This is doubly true because > a major terminology change creates the risk of introducing subtle > errors to the spec if one isn't careful. Apart from aesthetics, what > need do you think is fulfilled by aligning the specs? > > Alternately, if we do want to go ahead and change the specs, then a > (generic) definitions document such as you have volunteered to write > seems a necessity. I'm not a fan of "framework" documents and I hope > we could keep the scope of the proposed definitions document focused. OK, so folks don't seem to be to keen on the idea at this point. Given that I'm not attached to the idea of more work "for the sake of work" then I'll drop it. I believe there is room for commonality but look where that's got me in PWE3 *8^/ > By the way, I think "graceful restart" has historic precedence over > "hitless restart" if you want to align terms :-). Agreed. -danny _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion