Adrian, Alia
Looking for the outcome of an Interim meeting on the IETF website, I
became aware of how rarely the proceedings are fully reported (as I
posted to the main IETF list recently).
Of the meetings in 2014 that produced no Minutes, three are in the
Routing
Area,
2014-12-18 teas
2014-12-15
Lou
I think that it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to review this I-D
until the foundations on which it is based, mount and op-state, become
firmer.
I track the discussions on the netmod WG list (and have done so since
before it existed!) and do not expect either of those two issues to
settle
- Original Message -
From: "Lou Berger"
To: "t.petch" ; "Routing WG"
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 12:22 PM
> Tom,
>
> I understand your comment wrt mount . I think it is fair to suggest
that
> having a net mod working group document on the topic be a gating item.
Stay
> tuned. This s
Original Message -
From: "Christian Hopps"
To: "t.petch"
Cc: "Lou Berger" ; "Routing WG"
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 7:30 PM
> On Feb 26, 2016, at 12:29 PM, t.petch wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Lou Berger" mailto:lber...@labn.net>>
> To: "t.petch" mailto:ie...@
- Original Message -
From: "Mahesh Jethanandani"
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)"
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2016 11:10 PM
That or we could also rename it to protocol-key-chain to disambiguate it
from system-key-chain.
Mahesh
Myself, I prefer 'rDNS'.
If we have two models and one is about key
Stewart
You say that this protocol is only intended to be used for the
propagation of
parameters needed to support the operation of the routing system but the
registry you create is named
Network Wide Parameter Registry
which to me still carries the message that this is all embracing, not
just for
- Original Message -
From: "Stewart Bryant"
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 11:48 AM
> Hi Tom
>
> The intent is clear in the rest of the text.
>
> This was an oversight in the editing.
>
> How about "Network Wide Routing Parameter Registry"?
Stewart
I would like it to start with 'Routi
- Original Message -
From: "Stewart Bryant"
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 7:19 PM
> On 28/02/2017 17:20, t.petch wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Stewart Bryant"
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 11:48 AM
> >
> >> Hi Tom
> >>
> >> The intent is clear in the rest of
Acee
Changing the title and switching to rtgwg! and inserting after
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)"
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 9:01 PM
Hi Kent, Tom, et al,
On 3/23/17, 4:40 PM, "Kent Watsen" wrote:
>Hi Tom,
>
>> Sorry about mixing up keystore and keyc
"JT: Xufeng presented 4 considerations yesterday on how to proceed,
please take a look."
Do you have a reference for that, preferrably an I-D and not PowerPoint?
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Jeff Tantsura"
To: "RTGWG"
Cc: "rtgwg-chairs"
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 12:08 AM
I just got a bounce for this message for the chairs alias.
The same thing just happened on v6ops and the explanation is that when
outlook (not something I want to use but have no choice about) resends a
message, it can use one of 50 or more different addresses and grey
listing cannot cope with tha
- Original Message -
From: "Henning Rogge"
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 7:49 AM
>
> yes I think the new changes improve the draft and make it easier to
understand.
>
> I wonder if there is a way in YANG to prevent the duplication of all
> the fields between "interface" and "interface-state"
Acee
I don't understand what you are doing.
Martin suggested
" Since it is based on an IANA
registry,
>should it be in a separate IANA-maintained module, like iana-if-type
>in RFC 7224?"
but you have not done that. You have produced a separate module in
whi
Aseem
I would like you to think more deeply about the YANG prefix. Prefix
need to be easy to use, to read, view and need to be unique, ideally
across the IETF. At the same time, they need to be compact, especially
when used in lengthy references such as when statements (as RFC8407
says, t
I have some doubts about this I-D
-01 had four authors; -13 has four authors. None are the same yet much
of the text in the I-D is the same.
NSSA could be added to the Terminology and/or expanded on first use.
Policy subroutines sound interesting - if there is one example I would
find useful i
Looking some more, at -15:
The choice of OSPF identity puzzles me
I would expect a base OSPF identity to be useful from which all other
OSPF then derive
I am not familiar with NSSA T1 and T2 - I see no such language in
RFC3101 nor is there an update to that RFC (but they do appear in
ospf-y
I think that this I-D needs a few tweaks.
'RIB' 'a RIB '' the RIB' all appear and I like consistency; since boxes
can have multiple RIBs, I suspect 'a RIB' is best.
'route' v 'path' - RFC8349 consciously decided that path did not mean
much and so the term does not appear; here 'path' seems
Borrowing a recent e-mail for its addresses, not content
On 22/03/2022 16:11, Xufeng Liu wrote:
Hi Kenichi,
Thanks for the feedback. We will do the updates as requested.
Best,
Xufeng
I believe that you are the author of RFC8347.
What I am wondering (and you can probably guess why:-) is whet
On 03/05/2022 01:01, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
Dear RTGWG,
This mail begins a Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on
draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-10.
I find some of the language less than clear.
RFC8349 is specific that a RIB is for a single address family (which is
not how I see it used in other
On 18/11/2022 20:18, RFC Errata System wrote:
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8294,
"Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7255
-
On 01/05/2023 19:13, Yingzhen Qu wrote:
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your review and comments. Please see my answers below inline.
Thanks,
Yingzhen
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 2:33 AM tom petch wrote:
I thought that I had commented on this Last Call but perhaps not.
The English is quirky, e.g. mixed sin
21 matches
Mail list logo
