IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-brissette-bess-evpn-yang

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 24 May 2016 12:56 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD03812D126 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 05:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 QoaX2MaT1e_c for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 05:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E44A12D6F8 for <bess@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 05:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u4OCugRt028951; Tue, 24 May 2016 13:56:42 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (jplon-nat13.juniper.net [193.110.55.13]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u4OCueSS028942 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 24 May 2016 13:56:41 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Thomas Morin' <thomas.morin@orange.com>, bess@ietf.org
References: <572A049D.9020604@orange.com>
In-Reply-To: <572A049D.9020604@orange.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 13:56:40 +0100
Message-ID: <03a801d1b5bb$b7f2f5c0$27d8e140$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQKP25Ow+h/tXH5s9M8oEok2wBVjap5LvuCw
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.0.0.1202-22342.007
X-TM-AS-Result: No--15.917-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--15.917-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: +f/wAVSGjuiukizbfQV4m2/CU2X9JBM7UAjrAJWsTe9V84HrPxCfbGn7 AlTb8W2xWBraUBEggAiRNRmjf4IhXbm0eeYsa/fHf01qcJQDhV4ZKp0SZ4P+dXoZ5YK74mUQwua niM9QXy2C9FpVQ3HWgKoSMdHwVfcFHdkkLawA7SG8coKUcaOOvXZ6zGRJsJR0IFBEE5CFomL66S Hy9p5mtoJcsHHt88vbewir+QuD7R6eDTiYCBLjs3xTDivx6nwGDRi0jfY6gL2safcFLFlU1J9r1 3a77X8Wxo8zBaFtHvG0q5UeVCg1wF0zC58S7cYpQr2qXCJMSV91k+gP1XamtJsoi2XrUn/JyeMt MD9QOgCk8oKXKhRLPI2j49Ftap9EOwBXM346/+yud7R0/uOJ5SE9x+agsX//4qjTW192KS2UICu hbQdm+T2oZBPjkGgj
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/EQOnJx_ZT454ir62E4LaBJO1EYM>
Cc: draft-brissette-bess-evpn-yang@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-brissette-bess-evpn-yang
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 12:56:52 -0000

Thomas,

I think I also don't object to the adoption of this I-D.

In addition to the use of the term "service model" that I raised for
draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang and that I think should lead to clarification of the
purpose of the model described in this document, I have one question:

The Abstract says "The merging of this model with L2 services model is for
future investigation" and I assume this refers to draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang.
Isn't now (i.e., the moment of adoption) a good time to try to make that
decision so that work can progress smoothly once inside the WG?

Cheers,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Morin
> Sent: 04 May 2016 15:18
> To: bess@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-brissette-bess-evpn-yang@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-brissette-bess-evpn-yang
> 
> Hello working group,
> 
> This email starts a two-week poll on adopting
> draft-brissette-bess-evpn-yang [1] as a working group document.
> 
> Please state on the list if you support adoption or not (in both cases,
> please also state the reasons).
> 
> This poll runs until *May 25th*.
> 
> This call runs in parallel with the adoption call on
> draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang hence the extended period.
> 
> 
> We are *coincidentally* also polling for knowledge of any other
> IPR that applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed
> in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669
> and 5378 for more details).
> 
> ==> *If* you are listed as a document author or contributor please
> respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any
> relevant IPR.
> 
> The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from
> each author and contributor.
> 
> If you are not listed as an author or contributor, then please
> explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet
> been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Martin & Thomas
> bess chairs
> 
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-brissette-bess-evpn-yang
> 
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email