Re: [Idr] WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-10 (to end April 5, 2018)

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 21 March 2018 13:28 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD3C012DA48 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 06:28:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.53
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 pgSRQ3TYWzqX for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 06:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5037D12DA29 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 06:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=20868; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1521638902; x=1522848502; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=aKwbj70galID49t9q4a0nMiVvHJoxip0jj/g5RGc4dM=; b=lfAepJduUeKXoBZfDi7ulXNVUEOjuTcuoMV0BeJ9IZxUfgTo839W/egI WGHHLxr+G07EPiXVW4mkPjYGt305WiPxDjzYSm+pS08FE8k5iyk7AVBrn ejC7Ru3Hnj4RbBXP4ag4YEU/DfEtjZXFa2wzih77xmalK24QUsF7ltnDi I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0A0AQCVXLJa/4sNJK1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYMOL2FwKAqDUod/jQyDAZMoggkLGAuEYgIagzshNBgBAgEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQJrKIUmAgQBARsGETobAgEIDgwCJgICAiULFRACBAEShQ4Pqm+CIIRZg3CCC?= =?us-ascii?q?QWBCYY6ghOBDQEigmiBQYFSAQEDAYFdF4JqMIIkA4dIkHMJAoYMgmWGQYFFg36?= =?us-ascii?q?HbYkzhlwCERMBgSUBHDiBUnAVOioBghiCLY4icI5YgRYBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,340,1517875200"; d="scan'208";a="86699556"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Mar 2018 13:28:21 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (xch-rtp-014.cisco.com [64.101.220.154]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w2LDSKwT018119 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 21 Mar 2018 13:28:21 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (64.101.220.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:28:20 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:28:20 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>, IDR <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-10 (to end April 5, 2018)
Thread-Index: AQHTwPpSsjH2ZGEfmE209PKKCxP/FqParv0A
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 13:28:20 +0000
Message-ID: <B83F555A-F3D6-413E-B95D-A53D1F7CE58D@cisco.com>
References: <46B8CA55-6A36-4751-9395-967AD348BECD@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <46B8CA55-6A36-4751-9395-967AD348BECD@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.122.247]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <97BFEB5BB23B584890B1650C82B6665D@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7F66IaE4v-8zMpx3zGiq0wgkmuE>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-10 (to end April 5, 2018)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 13:28:25 -0000

I have reviewed the document and support WG last call and publication. I have the editorial comments below.

Thanks,
Acee 

*** draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-10.txt.orig	2018-03-21 09:13:20.000000000 -0400
--- draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-10.txt	2018-03-21 09:26:02.000000000 -0400
***************
*** 20,26 ****
  
  Abstract
  
!    This document defines new BGP-LS TLVs in order to carry the IGP
     Traffic Engineering Extensions defined in IS-IS and OSPF protocols.
  
  Requirements Language
--- 20,26 ----
  
  Abstract
  
!    This document defines BGP-LS TLVs to advertise the IGP
     Traffic Engineering Extensions defined in IS-IS and OSPF protocols.
  
  Requirements Language
***************
*** 96,109 ****
  
  1.  Introduction
  
!    BGP-LS ([RFC7752]) defines NLRI and attributes in order to carry
!    link-state information.  New BGP-LS Link-Attribute TLVs are required
!    in order to carry the Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions defined
     in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
  
  2.  Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions
  
!    The following new Link Attribute TLVs are defined:
  
  
  
--- 96,109 ----
  
  1.  Introduction
  
!    BGP-LS ([RFC7752]) defines NLRI and attributes to advertise
!    link-state information.  BGP-LS Link-Attribute TLVs are required
!    to advertise the Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions defined
     in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
  
  2.  Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions
  
!    The following Link Attribute TLVs are defined:
  
  
  
***************
*** 136,165 ****
  3.1.  Unidirectional Link Delay TLV
  
     This TLV advertises the average link delay between two directly
!    connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantic of the TLV is
!    described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
  
      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
!    |   Type                      |           Length                |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |A|  RESERVED   |                   Delay                       |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  
!    where:
  
                                   Figure 1
  
-    Type: 1114
- 
-    Length: 4.
- 
  3.2.  Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV
  
     This sub-TLV advertises the minimum and maximum delay values between
!    two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantic of the
!    TLV is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
  
  
  
--- 136,163 ----
  3.1.  Unidirectional Link Delay TLV
  
     This TLV advertises the average link delay between two directly
!    connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantics of the TLV 
!    are described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
  
      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
!    |   Type                        |         Length                |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |A|  RESERVED   |                   Delay                       |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  
!    Where:
!      Type: 1114
!      Length: 4
  
                                   Figure 1
  
  3.2.  Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV
  
     This sub-TLV advertises the minimum and maximum delay values between
!    two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantics of 
!    the TLV are described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
  
  
  
***************
*** 173,220 ****
      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
!    |   Type                      |           Length                |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |A| RESERVED    |                   Min Delay                   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |   RESERVED    |                   Max Delay                   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  
!    where:
  
                                   Figure 2
  
-    Type: 1115
- 
-    Length: 8.
  
  3.3.  Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV
  
     This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay variation between two
!    directly connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantic of the TLV
!    is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
  
      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
!    |   Type                      |           Length                |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  RESERVED     |               Delay Variation                 |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  
-    where:
  
!                                  Figure 3
  
!    Type: 1116
  
-    Length: 4.
  
  3.4.  Unidirectional Link Loss TLV
  
     This sub-TLV advertises the loss (as a packet percentage) between two
!    directly connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantic of the TLV
!    is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
  
  
  
--- 171,217 ----
      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
!    |   Type                        |           Length              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |A| RESERVED    |                   Min Delay                   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |   RESERVED    |                   Max Delay                   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  
!    Where:
!      Type: 1115
!      Length: 8
  
                                   Figure 2
  
  
  3.3.  Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV
  
     This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay variation between two
!    directly connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantics of the
!    TLV are described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
  
      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
!    |   Type                        |           Length              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  RESERVED     |               Delay Variation                 |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  
  
!    Where:
!      Type: 1116
!      Length: 4
  
!                                  Figure 3
  
  
  3.4.  Unidirectional Link Loss TLV
  
     This sub-TLV advertises the loss (as a packet percentage) between two
!    directly connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantics of the
!    TLV are described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
  
  
  
***************
*** 229,269 ****
      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
!    |   Type                      |           Length                |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |A|  RESERVED   |                  Link Loss                    |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  
!    where:
  
!    Type:1117
! 
!    Length: 4.
  
  3.5.  Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV
  
     This sub-TLV advertises the residual bandwidth between two directly
!    connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantic of the TLV is
     described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
  
      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
!    |   Type                      |           Length                |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                          Residual Bandwidth                   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  
!    where:
  
!    Type: 1118
  
-    Length: 4.
  
  3.6.  Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV
  
     This sub-TLV advertises the available bandwidth between two directly
!    connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantic of the TLV is
     described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
  
  
--- 226,267 ----
      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
!    |   Type                        |           Length              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |A|  RESERVED   |                  Link Loss                    |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  
!    Where:
!      Type: 1117
!      Length: 4
  
!                                  Figure 4
  
  3.5.  Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV
  
     This sub-TLV advertises the residual bandwidth between two directly
!    connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantics of the TLV are
     described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
  
      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
!    |   Type                        |           Length              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                          Residual Bandwidth                   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  
!    Where:
!      Type: 1118
!      Length: 4
  
!                                  Figure 5
  
  
  3.6.  Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV
  
     This sub-TLV advertises the available bandwidth between two directly
!    connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantics of the TLV are
     described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
  
  
***************
*** 285,302 ****
      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
!    |   Type                      |           Length                |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                      Available Bandwidth                      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  
-    where:
  
!                                  Figure 4
  
!    Type: 1119
  
-    Length: 4.
  
  3.7.  Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV
  
--- 283,300 ----
      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
!    |   Type                        |           Length              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                      Available Bandwidth                      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  
  
!    Where:
!      Type: 1119
!      Length: 4
  
!                                  Figure 6
  
  
  3.7.  Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV
  
***************
*** 312,324 ****
     |                     Utilized Bandwidth                        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  
!    where:
! 
!                                  Figure 5
  
!    Type: 1120
  
-    Length: 4.
  
  4.  Security Considerations
  
--- 310,321 ----
     |                     Utilized Bandwidth                        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  
!    Where:
!      Type: 1120
!      Length: 4
  
!                                  Figure 7
  
  
  4.  Security Considerations
  
***************
*** 340,353 ****
  
     instances originating these TLVs are assumed to have all the required
     security and authentication mechanism (as described in [RFC7810] and
!    [RFC7471]) in order to prevent any security issue when propagating
     the TLVs into BGP-LS.
  
  5.  IANA Considerations
  
!    This document requests assigning code-points from the registry "BGP-
     LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute
!    TLVs" for the new Link Attribute TLVs defined in the table below:
  
      TLV code-point                 Value
     --------------------------------------------------------
--- 337,350 ----
  
     instances originating these TLVs are assumed to have all the required
     security and authentication mechanism (as described in [RFC7810] and
!    [RFC7471]) in order to prevent any security issues when exporting
     the TLVs into BGP-LS.
  
  5.  IANA Considerations
  
!    This document requests assignment of code-points from the "BGP-
     LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute
!    TLVs" registry for the Link Attribute TLVs defined in the table below:
  
      TLV code-point                 Value
     --------------------------------------------------------
***************
*** 381,387 ****
  
  7.  Acknowledgements
  
!    The authors wish to acknowledge comments from Ketan Talaulikar.
  
  
  
--- 378,385 ----
  
  7.  Acknowledgements
  
!    The authors wish to acknowledge comments from Ketan Talaulikar and 
!    Acee Lindem.
  

On 3/21/18, 5:52 AM, "Idr on behalf of John Scudder" <idr-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of jgs@juniper.net> wrote:

    Hi All,
    
    The authors have requested a working group last call for draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-10. Please send your comments to the list before Thursday April 5.
    
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp/
    
    Authors, please reply indicating if you're aware of any relevant IPR. Thanks.
    
    --John
    _______________________________________________
    Idr mailing list
    Idr@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr