Re: [babel] Implementation experiences in draft form
Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com> Tue, 05 April 2016 17:22 UTC
Return-Path: <tonysietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E58512D74E for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 10:22:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Jy6TxEwevZqm for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 10:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22b.google.com (mail-io0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22b]) (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 3370712D0E7 for <babel@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 10:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id g185so27002849ioa.2 for <babel@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Apr 2016 10:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=To1cYKGO0/yy/eavQCsr0w8QG5XgGLaUOCz5AtvPoss=; b=whRQNEryI8kPwERhc+ejB7QoW/PygWbcwbnyH9b/eRplZe3h7IKRgZHD4nrSuyRZcg LruMX7MTr/1pZUN1FznrMkiatNGbljC5eknJGm87+REKkvFQADgc2IxKY/n0IJnA4dlw hBiTJx3BvRYOBwxn11yPwzviIYZqRBcw7OO3rFPMlnZ81k2uv7Ie+CVy9SQsrQCfrSHQ CUeuTvPOHu+em7moahHUfIHEj2hBnEJMp0oXRF9UsJmZq9UiHgu2UHMDrj/T+0E04SvP IwNQY2hT6URwoNkXwI+mgVfppmskhgBmNlYzFq0eCZtX/Y1/n3iAMlQU05POVMxPJL8/ wUaA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=To1cYKGO0/yy/eavQCsr0w8QG5XgGLaUOCz5AtvPoss=; b=BzvRTMFJHsLKzoJqteLaPVUhKI6duD/QpbcdDKn41NTf+JWuYqri2K6oO0AYIMHhiT HHVjqX+sjiDSKZ9WIpoqe9z53+27y6cS8ej1LyBbde8vllncLGJh2CphTFCSeO/U8rXW /AjUyJfMAEzmXldYbX1qAHppUqmaxK971gQ92rSX6XZGPEi7H58jA6E2Oa4sTMQrOfBy LxyM4hVZBsN8Q2axPJlZC+ixrzzOXaz7GNQXSz8ueCgBEjvLjDuCjR+MAfoDDfZ5rbz/ ESEySbsoKSa8OMdx3HdatxMC9KO0F1RrXIx2J7+YNC+NRDnNWIdStJbkodgWvWOICRMd UnVQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLNEiz+DAJUvoim2Z+OSUqGxUE7wGOuF7rYYrEVlRfQV0CQNqhWX6BwJngjitnrk08xetTEE7LXF8fr+g==
X-Received: by 10.107.165.78 with SMTP id o75mr20053723ioe.56.1459876953461; Tue, 05 Apr 2016 10:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.198.198 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 10:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <87lh4syt45.fsf@toke.dk>
References: <87lh4syt45.fsf@toke.dk>
From: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 10:21:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+wi2hM3Siq75DdqMhQ73A-=6rdbUjGJ2XZ12LT120KrRmPK7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1141f2623a1783052fc01785"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/MaFnmawgfyb_smILbGMZlAXRkq8>
Cc: Babel at IETF <babel@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [babel] Implementation experiences in draft form
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." <babel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/babel/>
List-Post: <mailto:babel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 17:22:36 -0000
implementation experience drafts/rfcs are pretty common on routing protocols here. See e.g. 4167 AFAIR they used to be even required on PS last calls ;-) --- tony On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 8:26 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote: > I took some time to write up my implementation experiences in draft > form; basically it's mytalk from the BoF in text. See > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoeiland-joergensen-babel-implementation/ > > Joel mentioned the possibility of turning such a document into an > informative RFC (as a future working group work item). Happy to have > this serve as a starting point in such a case; but if nothing else I > figured it might be useful for someone :) > > -Toke > > _______________________________________________ > babel mailing list > babel@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel > -- *We’ve heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know that is not true.* —Robert Wilensky
- [babel] Implementation experiences in draft form Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
- Re: [babel] Implementation experiences in draft f… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [babel] Implementation experiences in draft f… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [babel] Implementation experiences in draft f… Juliusz Chroboczek