Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04
Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> Fri, 09 February 2018 16:49 UTC
Return-Path: <gjshep@gmail.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 B4EF8126B72; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 08:49:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 xhJHcG2m4azV; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 08:49:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x234.google.com (mail-it0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::234]) (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 9F9001200FC; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 08:49:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x234.google.com with SMTP id 196so11393459iti.5; Fri, 09 Feb 2018 08:49:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=BJoEj9cIguNSJQNvh6eeV1Fs45/iJVvn61FlhAHBVSc=; b=B34wZqBZNrS8pr3A36aY/nBQBML7TsyQxjF7hN5+ooAonpOiCK+Go5sqIhKudXW8Du 52C8lcpjdHUM07iCsH44i1iy6dGpl/DZJveA9SQnweEBc2N3A4ruy3EtAEQLttyXGqwe Xm79PIqGYdxinYYAOwUUfOayzRxwgjaheqXCGDCEnLWuuy8nUFgdcLnYfo3Ep3zxjtF1 EFNpJcLUG8vMIKwGn72Ps/xFzGgvA3qXonf5x/gsv0xKE9MRgeA/O0rEvywy99Llk2jY 7cEoBr4lLOePJb0TUK8+hlI+5HRlU5EQyHVGJcMGcn+ff9QB1aG6IPP6sUCcKn8k58Tz 0hvg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BJoEj9cIguNSJQNvh6eeV1Fs45/iJVvn61FlhAHBVSc=; b=JjOlk0hbohYVNu/dFDtKX6S7/DB760/+Tm71+Irt4DhG6QiYHcIRmLdfdNYCBbFfN6 Z6bDfvxpmuavjXKopZS2ZCpuOgDHuEb3O+7t8FOoFiYUzmVKQBDHJo3wHcHDVEb0DQmI /2MfmdLYhTiO3YId+EYlcBjXw+UAZTiZ7RwuBSANIavWlT063YRizFUHovPLd3gTl01I QjflXZKKjIAo3CeCsOhbmHDoD9wTl0+jY1b0hyb0GOHa3yKQTmZpnhkbTcQqt/RG1q0R R2z4MJ6UApu9sYZorqKYMZ+uQYcGqYFz++5UyAVu5gaMoMEWKeqQAv3E/K+MyDJ8uaTQ zqJw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPA/2+8q8ISza7/L9ENe1TYIOwqjjdvJVpkb9EhVDjOwVp3fAvA4 xa4Rm/QlFsT/UqEy1x8DOCThqq27tU1Dr+ptiXE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226cplDiK4ghvcRIdMidxt293WHNsDioAbDaqAoP82YXrcwRbR37PI0QTKKa1WRtNJCrFT1W6K8laPZ5PZh7eXY=
X-Received: by 10.36.46.23 with SMTP id i23mr4258146ita.55.1518194967860; Fri, 09 Feb 2018 08:49:27 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.2.73.76 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 08:49:27 -0800 (PST)
Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CABFReBqEJu5nBMdJm0cmBuUYhatD+JRCpn7TppC-hgV4HGZ3sQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170721062741.GA3215@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CA+wi2hOCZkLeuqnqr-waNMtaex+Pjq3rXzH-HVqJhLkWQUgj_Q@mail.gmail.com> <567fdbe4992c4207b54c77b1ec8cd0cd@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <20170722133419.GA18218@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <37e324dc58454778b70c72255066536f@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <20170725195211.GA7411@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CABFReBpt088=SC3eBcfFbJ24e_+GkDmvKh05AaQtUmCoaKEG3w@mail.gmail.com> <cd2bcf2853684097a3d21fd20742d4ed@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <CABFReBqEJu5nBMdJm0cmBuUYhatD+JRCpn7TppC-hgV4HGZ3sQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 08:49:27 -0800
Message-ID: <CABFReBoBXn-Fc5B+Y9VdfEWC+sY=bLdmDUz3NqO6XXeDgbeW_g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
Cc: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>, "Hannes Gredler (hannes@gredler.at)" <hannes@gredler.at>, "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org list" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114a9d82c25cc70564ca4fcc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/Wh7owT5n5KXFh4_TZlzu1owRTZg>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 16:49:32 -0000
Les, draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions still mentions BAR. Is this intentional? Then consensus on the thread was to remove BAR. Greg On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:45 PM, Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Les. > > Any other feedback? Looks like the concerns have been addressed. Speak now. > > Cheers, > Greg > > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) < > ginsberg@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Greg – >> >> >> >> This thread is outdated. >> >> In V6 of the draft we removed the restriction to limit IS-IS BIER support >> to area boundaries – so Toerless’s comment (and my proposed text) are no >> longer relevant. >> >> >> >> Specifically: >> >> >> >> Section 4.1: >> >> >> >> “At present, IS-IS support for a given BIER domain/sub-domain >> is >> >> limited to a single area - or to the IS-IS L2 >> sub-domain.” >> >> >> >> The above text was removed. >> >> >> >> Section 4.2 >> >> >> >> o BIER sub-TLVs MUST NOT be included when a prefix reachability >> >> advertisement is leaked between levels. >> >> >> >> Was changed to >> >> >> >> o BIER sub-TLVs MUST be included when a prefix reachability >> >> advertisement is leaked between levels. >> >> >> >> This aligns IS-IS and OSPF drafts in this regard. >> >> >> >> Les >> >> >> >> *From:* Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 01, 2018 2:23 AM >> *To:* Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> >> *Cc:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>; Tony Przygienda < >> tonysietf@gmail.com>; Hannes Gredler (hannes@gredler.at) < >> hannes@gredler.at>; bier@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org list < >> isis-wg@ietf.org>; Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> >> >> *Subject:* Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04 >> >> >> >> Have these changes been reflected in the draft? We're in WGLC but this >> discussion needs to come to a conclusion so we can progress. >> >> >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote: >> >> Thanks, Less, that would be lovely! >> >> I didn't check the OSPF draft, if its similar state, explanatory text >> wold equally be appreciated. >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 11:28:08PM +0000, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: >> > Toerless - >> > >> > I am thinking to add a statement in Section 4.1 - something like: >> > >> > "At present, IS-IS support for a given BIER domain/sub-domain is >> limited to a single area - or to the IS-IS L2 sub-domain." >> > >> > If you believe this would be helpful I will spin a new version (subject >> to review/agreement from my co-authors). >> > >> > Les >> > >> > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: Toerless Eckert [mailto:tte@cs.fau.de] >> > > Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 6:34 AM >> > > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >> > > Cc: Tony Przygienda; Hannes Gredler (hannes@gredler.at); Greg >> Shepherd; >> > > bier@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org list; Christian Hopps >> > > Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04 >> > > >> > > Thanks Les >> > > >> > > When searching various terms in the doc to figure out what happens i >> am not >> > > sure why i missed this one. >> > > >> > > But: IMHO, RFCs can not only be the minimum number of words to get a >> > > running implementation. It also needs to specify what this >> implementation >> > > intends to achieve. Otherwise its not possible to do a useful review: >> > > The reviewer can to verify whether the spec will achieve what it >> claims to >> > > achieve is there no definitionn of what it claims to achieve. >> > > >> > > If i understand ISIS correctly, my reverse engineering of the intent >> is: >> > > >> > > - BIER TLVs stay within single ISIS areas. BFIR and BFER must >> therefore be >> > > in the same ISIS area: There is no inter-area BIER traffic possible >> > > with this specification. This is also true for ISIS area 0. >> > > >> > > - The same BIER sub-domain identifiers can be re-used >> > > across different ISIS areas without any current impact. If these >> BFR-IDs >> > > are non-overlapping, then this would allow in the future to create >> a single >> > > cross ISIS area BIER sub-domain by leaking TLVs for such a BIER >> sub-domain >> > > across ISIS levels. Leakage is outside the scope of this >> specificication. >> > > >> > > I actually even would like to do the following: >> > > >> > > - If BIER sub-domains are made to span multiple ISIS areas and BFR-ids >> > > assignemtns >> > > are made such that all BFR-ids with the same SI are in the same >> ISIS ara, >> > > then it should be in the future reasonably easy to create >> inter-area BIER >> > > not by leaking of the BIER TLV but by having BFIR MPLS unicastBIER >> packets >> > > for different SIs to an appropriate L2L1 BFIR that is part of the >> destination >> > > area/SI. >> > > (if you would use SI number that are the same as ISIS area numbers >> then >> > > you could probably do this without any new signaling. Not quite >> sure if >> > > you can today easily find L1L2 border router for another area via >> existing >> > > TLVs). >> > > >> > > Alas, this idea will probably be killed because of the BIER >> architecture >> > > intent not to engineer SI assignments in geographical fashions to >> > > minimize traffic duplication in the presence of multiple SIs. >> > > >> > > Cheers >> > > Toerless >> > > >> > > On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 06:03:53AM +0000, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >> wrote: >> > > > Tony/Toerless ??? >> > > > >> > > > There is an explicit statement as to scope: >> > > > >> > > > <snip> >> > > > Section 4.2 >> > > > ??? >> > > > o BIER sub-TLVs MUST NOT be included when a prefix reachability >> > > > advertisement is leaked between levels. >> > > > <end snip> >> > > > >> > > > Tony seems to have forgotten that we had a discussion about how BIER >> > > might be supported across areas and the conclusion was we did not know >> > > how to do that yet. >> > > > (Sorry Tony) >> > > > >> > > > Note this is ???consistent??? with https://www.ietf.org/id/draft- >> ietf-bier- >> > > ospf-bier-extensions-07.txt Section 2.5<https://www.ietf.org/id/dr >> aft-ietf- >> > > bier-ospf-bier-extensions-07.txt%20Section%202.5> - which limits the >> > > flooding scope of BIER information to a single area unless it can be >> validated >> > > that the best path to the prefix with BIER info can be validated to >> be to a >> > > router which itself advertised the BIER info. This is not something >> IS-IS can do >> > > since a single IS-IS instance only supports one area and therefore >> does not >> > > have the Level-1 advertisements of the originating router when that >> router is >> > > in another area. >> > > > >> > > > A few more responses inline. >> > > > >> > > > From: BIER [mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tony >> Przygienda >> > > > Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 5:17 AM >> > > > To: Toerless Eckert >> > > > Cc: Hannes Gredler (hannes@gredler.at); Greg Shepherd; >> bier@ietf.org; >> > > > isis-wg@ietf.org list; Christian Hopps >> > > > Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04 >> > > > >> > > > Terminology is a bit nits IMO since the doc is reading clear >> enough for >> > > someone who read BIER & ISIS. I can reread it or Les can comment >> whether >> > > we should tighten glossary ... >> > > > >> > > > With the scope I agree, that got lost and the doc should be >> possibly rev'ed >> > > before closing LC. Yes, we flood AD wide was the agreement but >> something >> > > mentioning that this could change in the future is good so we are >> forced to >> > > give it some thought how that would transition ... >> > > > >> > > > Thinking further though, in ISIS we have a clean document really. >> The BIER >> > > sub-TLVs go into well defined TLVs in terms of flooding scope. Normal >> L1-L2 >> > > redistribution can be used to get the info to all needed places >> AFAIS. So >> > > maybe nothing needs to be written. I wait for Les to chime in. >> > > > >> > > > OSPF I would have to look @ scopes again & think whether we need to >> > > write something or maybe Peter can comment ... >> > > > >> > > > --- tony >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Toerless Eckert >> > > <tte@cs.fau.de<mailto:tte@cs.fau.de>> wrote: >> > > > Sorry, past the two weeks, but hopefully benign textual comments: >> > > > >> > > > We tried to find an explicit statement about the scope of BIER TLVs >> - eg: >> > > > are they meant to stay within an area, have some redistribution >> across >> > > > areas/levels or not. >> > > > >> > > > Tony said WG agreement was to have these TLV be flooded across the >> > > > whole ISIS domain for now (this draft). So an explicit statement to >> that >> > > effect would >> > > > be great (All BIER sub-domains TLVs are flooded across all ISIS >> areas/levels, >> > > so they span the whole ISIS domain). >> > > > >> > > > Also, if future work may/should could improve on that maybe some >> > > > sentence about that (i guess one could just have ISIS intra-area >> BIER sub- >> > > domains ?). >> > > > >> > > > Also: Do a check about possible ambiguity of any generic terms like >> > > sub-domain, level, area, topology so that reader that don't know the >> > > terminology ofall protocols (ISIS, BIER) by heart can easily know >> which >> > > protocol is referred to. >> > > > >> > > > [Les:] There is no mention of ???level??? in the document. >> > > > The use of ???sub-domain??? is clearly always associated with >> ???BIER???. >> > > > ???topology??? is always used as an RFC 5120 topology ??? therefore >> > > clearly an IS-IS topology. >> > > > There is only one use of the term ???area??? (in Section 5.1). That >> text >> > > might deserve a bit of clarification given this might be either a >> Level 1 area or >> > > the Level2 sub-domain. I???ll take a pass at it. >> > > > (BTW ??? I am talking about IS-IS area/L2sub-domain Toerless. ???) >> > > > >> > > > I don???t see that any other clarification is needed ??? but >> Toerless ??? if >> > > you can point to any specific sentences/paragraphs which you find >> confusing >> > > - I???ll take a second look. >> > > > >> > > > Les >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > I guess there are no BIER level, area or topologies, but still makes >> > > > reading easier if the doc would say "ISIS level", "ISIS area", or at >> > > > least have them in the Terminology section. And probably in >> > > > terminology say "domain -> in the context of this document the BIER >> > > domain which is also the same as the ISIS domain" >> > > > (which i hope is the correct statement, see above). >> > > > >> > > > Cheers >> > > > Toerless >> > > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > BIER mailing list >> > > > BIER@ietf.org<mailto:BIER@ietf.org> >> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > We???ve heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could >> > > produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the >> Internet, >> > > we know that is not true. >> > > > ???Robert Wilensky >> > > >> > > -- >> > > --- >> > > tte@cs.fau.de >> >> >> > >
- [Isis-wg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04 Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Eric C Rosen
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Xiejingrong