[Isis-wg] 答复: 转发: New Version Notification for draft-xu-isis-flooding-reduction-in-msdc-00.txt

Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> Sat, 14 January 2017 08:01 UTC

Return-Path: <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA609129456 for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 00:01:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.42
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.42 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-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 6ZHce5VVi4Xb for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 00:01:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24985126B6D for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 00:01:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DEK24722; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 08:00:58 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.75) by lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 08:00:58 +0000
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by nkgeml414-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 16:00:52 +0800
From: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
To: Russ White <7riw77@gmail.com>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: =?utf-8?B?W0lzaXMtd2ddIOi9rOWPkTogTmV3IFZlcnNpb24gTm90aWZpY2F0aW9uIGZv?= =?utf-8?B?ciBkcmFmdC14dS1pc2lzLWZsb29kaW5nLXJlZHVjdGlvbi1pbi1tc2RjLTAw?= =?utf-8?Q?.txt?=
Thread-Index: AQHSaAPqWxnB1a/xuEOBFBmqdRW4aKEw/KowgATpFwCAAb1iAA==
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 08:00:34 +0000
Message-ID: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE2BB4A9E4@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE2BB498B7@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <030201d26d9d$f5669700$e033c500$@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <030201d26d9d$f5669700$e033c500$@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.184.181]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090204.5879DABB.0064, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: b22ee4ff2c545c6711a045312a48478b
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/Im4iAn6W6TpH89p_5MGmoaDGqrU>
Subject: [Isis-wg] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiAg6L2s5Y+ROiBOZXcgVmVyc2lvbiBOb3Rp?= =?utf-8?q?fication_for_draft-xu-isis-flooding-reduction-in-msdc-00=2Etxt?=
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 08:01:05 -0000

Hi Russ,

Thanks for pointing out the following two RFCs. I have not looked at them before. It seems that those two drafts are also intended to reduce OSPF flooding and adjacencies. However, since those two RFCs and my draft are targeted for totally different network environments (e.g., MANET and Controller-assisted CLOS network) and therefore the approaches have many differences ,IMHO.

By the way, do you have any interest on this work? 

Best regards,
Xiaohu

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Russ White [mailto:7riw77@gmail.com]
> 发送时间: 2017年1月13日 21:07
> 收件人: Xuxiaohu; isis-wg@ietf.org
> 主题: RE: [Isis-wg] 转发: New Version Notification for
> draft-xu-isis-flooding-reduction-in-msdc-00.txt
> 
> 
> > > Title:		IS-IS Flooding Reduction in MSDC
> 
> Have you looked at --
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5614/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5449/
> 
> :-)
> 
> Russ
>