Return-Path: 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 DC65A12002F for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 17:56:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.347 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no 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 t8VwYgGurEJg for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 17:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-100-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.100]) (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 4DB67120020 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 17:56:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=166.170.20.155; From: "Susan Hares" To: "'Ketan Talaulikar \(ketant\)'" , "'idr wg'" References: <01a301d58f25$8c17ce70$a4476b50$@ndzh.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 20:56:52 -0400 Message-ID: <008e01d591e1$94e98a20$bebc9e60$@ndzh.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_008F_01D591C0.0DD7EA20" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQIvbKtAYhFbVOZK3befDkYvA1tdwAKQYvKgprBmfsA= Content-Language: en-us X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 191102-0, 11/02/2019), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-09.txt (10/30 to 11/13/2019) X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2019 00:56:59 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_008F_01D591C0.0DD7EA20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ketan: =20 Thank you for updating the report card. 2 implementation are enough to = go to the IESG. If the other ones come back, we can add them later. =20 Sue=20 =20 From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:ketant@cisco.com]=20 Sent: Saturday, November 2, 2019 9:39 AM To: Susan Hares; 'idr wg' Subject: RE: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-09.txt = (10/30 to 11/13/2019) =20 Hi Sue, =20 I see that there are only 2 Cisco implementations on the report now and = I can confirm that they have interoperated. I am not sure about other = implementations and I am not aware of their interoperability aspects. =20 Thanks, Ketan =20 From: Idr On Behalf Of Susan Hares Sent: 30 October 2019 18:56 To: 'idr wg' Subject: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-09.txt (10/30 to = 11/13/2019) =20 This begins a 2 week WG last call for = draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-09.txt.=20 =20 The first thing the authors need to do during the WG LC is to indicate = whether the protocol implementation report on this draft is accurate on = the IDR Wiki: =20 = https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution%20imp= lementations =20 The IDR WG needs to know whether the 4 implementations indicated (2 = cisco and 2 Huawei) have interoperated using this TLV code point. The = current web page leaves some doubt.=20 =20 Cheerily, Susan Hares=20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_008F_01D591C0.0DD7EA20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ketan:

 

Thank you for updating = the report card.=C2=A0=C2=A0 2 implementation are enough to go to the = IESG. =C2=A0If the other ones come back, we can add them = later.

 

Sue =

 

From:= = Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:ketant@cisco.com]
Sent: = Saturday, November 2, 2019 9:39 AM
To: Susan Hares; 'idr = wg'
Subject: RE: [Idr] WG LC on = draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-09.txt (10/30 to = 11/13/2019)

 

Hi Sue,

 

I see that there are only 2 Cisco implementations on the = report now and I can confirm that they have interoperated. I am not sure = about other implementations and I am not aware of their interoperability = aspects.

 

Thanks,

Ketan

 

From: Idr = <idr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Susan = Hares
Sent: 30 October 2019 18:56
To: 'idr wg' = <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] WG LC on = draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-09.txt (10/30 to = 11/13/2019)

 

This begins a 2 week WG last call for = draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-09.txt.

 

The first thing the = authors need to do during the WG LC is to indicate whether the protocol = implementation report  on this draft is accurate on the IDR = Wiki:

 

 https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-= eag-distribution%20implementations

 

The IDR WG = needs to know whether the 4 implementations indicated (2 cisco and 2 = Huawei) have interoperated using this TLV code point.   The = current web page leaves some doubt.

 

Cheerily, = Susan Hares

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_008F_01D591C0.0DD7EA20--