Alia, Alvaro,
+1,
I think Bruno is summarizing the situation perfectly.
Pierre.
On 5/31/12 12:24 PM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
Alia, Alvaro,
I support adoption.
As requested, below some (quickly written) opinions:
Positive:
++ Incremental deployment with incremental benefits.
(Even
Gabor,
Your analysis is right. It is a strong assumption to consider that all
links have the same metric, though.
You can get rid of that assumption if you consider PQ with directed
forwarding.
I had proved that in my thesis when I was young ;-)
biblio.info.ucl.ac.be/2007/457147.pdf (page
Alvaro,
Support. This draft is useful for those who want to control LFAs further than
enabling its default behaviour.
Pierre. (Note that I am listed in the contributors section at the end of the
draft.)
On Apr 2, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The authors of
Dear rtgwg list members,
I would like to know your opinion about what we should do with
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-litkowski-rtgwg-uloop-delay-00 , that we
presented in Orlando.
The idea was to avoid microloops occurring in the direct neighbourhood of a
node shutting down or bringing
can delay
> implementations of a better solution.
>
> I understand the desire to standardize something and to take something that
> seems straightforward and is likely useful to at least one network, but given
> the WG track record, at a minimum, I think we must have a more complete
Stephane,
Much progress on the topic has been made since that much preliminary Infocom
paper.
So here come more up-to-date reference points to compare:
Graceful Convergence in Link-State IP Networks
F. Clad, P. Mérindol, J.-J. Pansiot, P. Francois and O. Bonaventure
In IEEE/ACM Transactions o
ome few enough in general to be practical?
>
> Alia
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Pierre Francois
> wrote:
> Stephane,
>
> Much progress on the topic has been made since that much preliminary Infocom
> paper.
> So here come more up-to-date referen
Hello Alvaro,
I am not sure I replied to this one :-S
Just to be sure: I am not aware of any other IPR claims than the ones already
mentioned.
Regards,
Pierre.
On Apr 11, 2014, at 4:11 PM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
> Hi Alvaro,
>
> I am not aware of any other IPR claims than the
+1
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 20, 2015, at 5:31 PM, wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I support both drafts.
>
> I'm not aware of any IPR.
>
> Stephane
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 19:25
> To:
Hello Chris,
I am not aware of IPR related to this document.
Regards,
Pierre.
> On Jun 21, 2017, at 5:05 PM, Chris Bowers wrote:
>
>
>
> _
> From: Chris Bowers
> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 12:26 PM
> To: 'RTGWG'
> Cc: 'draft-ietf-rtgwg-ulo
Hello,
I'm not aware of any non-disclosed IPR.
Pierre.
- Mail original -
> De: "Stephane Litkowski, slitkows"
> À: "Stewart Bryant"
> Cc: "Ahmed Bashandy" , "Clarence Filsfils
> (cfilsfil)" , "Pierre Francois"
&
Hello,
I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
Regards,
Pierre.
Le jeu. 16 nov. 2023 à 09:14, Francois Clad a écrit :
> Hi Yingzhen,
>
> I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR applicable to this document.
>
> Cheers,
> Francois
>
> On Nov 14, 2023 at 19:23:06, Yingzhen Qu wrot
Hello,
As a co-author, I support publication.
Best regards,
Pierre.
> De: "Gyan Mishra"
> À: "Yingzhen Qu"
> Cc: "RTGWG" , "draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa"
> , "rtgwg-chairs"
> , spr...@ietf.org
> Envoyé: Dimanche 21 Janvier 2024 08:55:48
> Objet: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-se
Ahmed,
Please go ahead and make that change.
- "key" is an unecessary wording for IETF documents.
- No one reading this spec needs "key" in this sentence to get the point.
/pfr
> De: "Ahmed Bashandy"
> À: "Alexander Vainshtein" , "rtgwg"
>
> Cc: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa a
sfully submitted by Pierre Francois and posted to the
>IETF repository.
>
>Name: draft-francois-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa
>Revision: 00
>Title: Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment Routing
>Document date: 2015-08-17
>Group: Indiv
Jeff,
I assume one of us will present it, yes. I don¹t know if it will be me ;)
Cheers,
Pierre.
On 17/08/15 15:42, "Jeff Tantsura" wrote:
>Thanks Pierre.
>I assume you'd want to present it during next IETF?
>
>Regards,
>Jeff
>
>> On Aug 17, 2015
Hello everyone,
I would tend to agree with Alvaro on the fact that the comparison table should
completely disappear from the work. More generally, comparison with other
solutions should not be present in this draft, at all.
The reason is that the points of comparison currently featured in the
17 matches
Mail list logo
