IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-03.txt - 2 week WG adoption call

Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com> Fri, 19 April 2019 14:50 UTC

Return-Path: <linda.dunbar@huawei.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 D5BB71202E3 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 07:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 X_-R0cXH0ryv for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 07:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E095120159 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 07:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 1D9178375FD456021FCA for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 15:50:01 +0100 (IST)
Received: from SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.38) by lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 15:50:00 +0100
Received: from SJCEML521-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.31]) by SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 07:49:56 -0700
From: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-03.txt - 2 week WG adoption call
Thread-Index: AdT18PKNf1StrQ3RRRaQiBRQFVL9LwAApx/QACe+arAACx9HwA==
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:49:55 +0000
Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F66B38A9B9@sjceml521-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <015501d4f5f2$7a72ed70$6f58c850$@ndzh.com> <5316A0AB3C851246A7CA5758973207D463B9CEED@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com> <19AB2A007F56DB4E8257F949A2FB9858E5B76B6B@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <19AB2A007F56DB4E8257F949A2FB9858E5B76B6B@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.157.203]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F66B38A9B9sjceml521mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/xgTT8mgnlZiqAkHRpMbDgUNAESc>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-03.txt - 2 week WG adoption call
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:50:06 -0000

Support,

Linda Dunbar

rom: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 10:25 AM
To: idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-03.txt - 2 week WG adoption call

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-03.txt.  You can access the document at:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions/

During your comments, please consider the following:


1)      Does adding the announcement of seamless S-BFD descriptors via BGP LS address family benefit network provisioning?

2)      Is it important to keep the same BGP-ls information in OSPF, IS-IS, and BGP regarding S-BFD discriminators?

3)      Is this document mature enough for WG Adoption?

4)      Are there any issues that the WG should consider to help quicken the pace of the adoption?

5)      Do you know of planned implementations?  If so, should is this document mature enough to receive early allocation for the BGP-LS code points.

Remember that raising issues regarding document during WG adoption will help us speed this BGP-LS WG document toward WG LC.

Cheerily, Susan Hares

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email