fc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt>
>
> [ED] Will be changed.
>
> N6. s/Obviously/
>
> [ED] Will be removed.
>
> _
>
> Ce messag
___
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
3jT9uX40h0/
—>8—
It is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group (OPSAWG)
WG of the IETF.
Title: Guidelines for Characterizing "OAM"
Authors: Carlos Pignataro
Adrian Farrel
Name:draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-04.txt
Pages: 1
Hi,
As a co-author, I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this document.
I support adoption of this document. It targets chartered work and a spring
milestone. It provides a solid basis for Spring OAM (as co-author).
Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro.
Excuze typofraphicak errows
On Jun 10
Hi,
I support adoption of draft-geib-spring-oam-usecase, as a co-author.
I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR relevant to this document.
Thanks,
— Carlos.
> On Jul 22, 2015, at 3:13 PM, John G. Scudder wrote:
>
> Dear WG,
>
> As we discussed at our meeting yesterday, working group adoption
Thank you, Roberta!
Please see inline.
> On Jul 22, 2015, at 11:55 PM, Roberta Maglione (robmgl)
> wrote:
>
> Hello,
> I read the document and I support its adoption as WG item.
> I have just few editorial comments:
> - I would suggest adding a terminology section to list new acronyms (like
>
Roberta,
> On Aug 6, 2015, at 06:03, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
> wrote:
>
> Thank you, Roberta!
>
> Please see inline.
>
>> On Jul 22, 2015, at 11:55 PM, Roberta Maglione (robmgl)
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>> I read the document and I
> On Apr 7, 2016, at 6:39 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
>
> On 4/6/2016 11:37 AM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
>> The situation in MPLS-SR is a little bit complex since the outgoing label
>> for a given /32 or /128 prefix FEC could be learnt either from the IGP
>> next-hop of that FEC or the originator of that FEC d
Hi,
The datatracker shows two IPR disclosures against this document, with IDs 2314
and 2406.
I am not aware of any additional and undisclosed IPR directly applicable to
this I-D.
Thanks!
Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro.
Excuze typofraphicak errows
> On Jul 24, 2016, at 13:47, J
Thanks again, Faisal, for taking time to review and comment! All very useful.
We will spin a new rev addressing them.
Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro.
Excuze typofraphicak errows
> On Oct 1, 2016, at 11:02, Faisal Iqbal (faiqbal) wrote:
>
> Thank you Ruediger for your quick response
Dear Bruno,
Closing the loop on this WGLC, we just submitted a new revision of this draft
addressing all received WGLC comments.
Thanks,
— Carlos.
> On Oct 1, 2016, at 11:01 AM, Faisal Iqbal (faiqbal) wrote:
>
> Thank you Ruediger for your quick response. I agree with your suggestions and
>
/Trace for Segment
Routing Networks Using MPLS Dataplane
Authors : Nagendra Kumar
George Swallow
Carlos Pignataro
Nobo Akiya
Sriganesh Kini
Robert,
I did not read any “accusation” or “attack” in SM’s note, nor anything
specifically directed at Bruno, the person, his decision-making, or his
character — just a set of question to the AD on potential based on roles and
processes.
Thanks,
— Carlos.
PS: There are documents that codify
Dear Greg,
> 2020/02/26 午後5:38、Greg Mirsky のメール:
>
> Dear All,
> please find my notes and questions in-lined tagged GIM>>.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 12:58 PM Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
> wrote:
Refreshing my cache -- since your rep
Dear Greg,
Cursorily scanning through this, it seems that most concerns raised and
comments made about the SR sections of draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-0N (with N
< 5) apply to your new draft.
This is one of those:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg15860.html — the list
arc
mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Carlos,
I've decided to re-start the discussion and am interested to hear technical
comments to the proposed solution.
Regards,
Greg
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Dear Greg,
C
7110. I viewed the proposal as
invitation to technical discussion.
Regards,
Greg
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Thank you Greg!
Since https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-00 seems quite
similar to the te
mpls-bfd-directed :) Google also seems to be pretty clueless about
it.
Just curious as you keep using this term in each email :)
Thx,
R.
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Greg,
In the MPLS data plane, FECs are also instantiated thr
y FECs are being defined at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-02
Hope that helps,
— Carlos.
PS: As I find this repetitive, this is my last email on the subject.
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
> wrote:
Hi,
I do not believe SPRING should work on draft-ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement. It
makes more sense to focus on solutions than these weak and sparse requirements
for very diverse set of potential protocols (LSP Ping, BFD, S-BFD, SRv6 OAMs,
etc).
Thanks,
— Carlos.
On May 16, 2017, at 4:18 AM
Loa,
I am not aware of any IPR that applies to the subject matter in
draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping.
Thanks,
— Carlos.
> On Jun 5, 2017, at 3:39 AM, Loa Andersson wrote:
>
> Working Group, authors,
>
> We have started to prepare the the draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping for
> wglc, prior to
become a
significantly larger section, or (more likely) the text needs to be removed.
Editorial:
Chapter 7 is titled dealing with non-SR environments. Which makes sense.
The text then switches to using "pre-SR" instead of "non-SR". I would
recommend that all uses
be sent using stale MPLS or IGP routing information.
>
> As it is necessary to know that the information is stale is order to follow
> the
> instruction, as is the case with for example convergence events that may be
> ongoing at the time of diagnostic measurement.
>
Agreed. W
There are
two uses of pre-SR stil in the document.
Otherwise, yes, these address my comments.
Yours,
Joel
On 7/1/17 4:52 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
Thanks for your review, Joel!
Revision -07, just submitted, should address all your concerns and suggestions.
Please let us know oth
to a change.
However, personally, I do not see the need.
>
> Minor issues:
>
> None.
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> This document refers to RFC 4379, which has been obsoleted by RFC 8029. It
> seems like the references should be updated.
>
>
Indeed. Don
I'll take care of it. Thanks!
Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro.
Excuze typofraphicak errows
On Jul 25, 2017, at 18:42, Alvaro Retana (aretana)
mailto:aret...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hi!
I looked -08 and almost everything looks good to me.
The only exception is the result from the co
enough: for example, rfc7880
should be enough for S-BFD; no need to mention all.
I’ll leave this document waiting for the Architecture so we can progress them
together. Please update the references when you get a chance, no hurry.
Thanks!
Alvaro.
On 7/1/17, 4:34 PM, "Carlos Pignataro on
om>
Senior MPLS Expert l...@pi.nu<mailto:l...@pi.nu>
Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64
—
Carlos Pignataro, car...@cisco.com<mailto:car...@cisco.com>
“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make mys
with end-to-end measurements per se.
And “SR OAM Use Case” is not intended to be a collection of potential use cases
either. Orthogonal to this thread.
Thanks,
—
Carlos Pignataro, car...@cisco.com<mailto:car...@cisco.com>
On Nov 16, 2017, at 4:51 AM, Alexander Vain
e ready to discuss
how to support these measurements in SR-MPLS.
I believe trying to RSVP-TE-ify the path characteristics, or inventing
SR-MPLS-TP is not a good idea.
Thanks,
—
Carlos Pignataro, car...@cisco.com<mailto:car...@cisco.com>
On Nov 21, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Robert Raszuk
mailto:rob...@r
measurements of any kind.
* This discussion indicates things other than “ that OAM requirements
document is useful”.
Thanks,
—
Carlos Pignataro, car...@cisco.com<mailto:car...@cisco.com>
On Nov 16, 2017, at 4:15 AM, Greg Mirsky
mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Sasha,
perational needs closer to trace route than
to mid-point strict accounting. The sentence you quote above is in the context
of this.
Best,
— Carlos.
Regards,
Greg
On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote:
[Sorry for jumping late t
Dear Greg,
Since there had been no responses to the few emails you had sent to the three
lists (MPLS, SPRING, RTG-BFD) about various versions of this draft, here’s some
high-level thoughts. I hope these are clear and useful.
In this email you mention BFD as the Target WG, the document file name
Many thanks Takeshi for your review! We will fix the minor and editorial
comments.
Thanks!
—
Carlos Pignataro, car...@cisco.com<mailto:car...@cisco.com>
“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound
more photosynthesis."
On Dec 12, 2017, at 2:52
n is not recommended.
:
Best regards,
—
Carlos Pignataro, car...@cisco.com<mailto:car...@cisco.com>
“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound
more photosynthesis."
On Dec 12, 2017, at 2:52 AM, Takeshi Takahashi
mailto:takeshi_takaha..
the
Thanks,
— Carlos Pignataro
On Oct 25, 2018, at 3:41 PM, Greg Mirsky
mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Nagendra,
yes, you're correct and I was not, thank you for pointing that out. Indeed,
Echo mode, whether BFD or S-BFD, may be used as the test probe to he
[A very late reply to this email, but since no-one else replied… to add topic
diversity to the list.]
SPRING chairs,
Sending this note only for completeness, and not as indication of interest or
support of draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-08.txt.
Since draft-mirsky-spring-bfd has no provenance metadata
+1. We should have different codepoints for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
I recall we actually planned to do that not too long ago, but I cannot find the
draft on which we split the codepoint.
From: "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)"
Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 2:31 AM
To: "Ketan Talaulik
we go about it? Is this an addendum to the RFC?
Mustapha.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 11, 2019, at 6:32 AM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote:
+1. We should have different codepoints for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
I recall we actually planned to do that not too long ago,
Hello, SPRING chairs,
Ditto Re-
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/FzI1bFjYoFza4Ysu9DCOzcWme4I
draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-08.txt seems to simply be an attempt to bypass previous
reviews by shopping a new WG. Instead of responding to technically
show-stopping comments, this text was remo
40 matches
Mail list logo
