IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Routing for Spine-Leaf Topology" - draft-shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext-07

Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com> Sun, 02 December 2018 16:29 UTC

Return-Path: <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE501130EE6 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Dec 2018 08:29:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 qZZdo3M_CrkZ for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Dec 2018 08:29:11 -0800 (PST)
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 E7D0C130EE3 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Dec 2018 08:29:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id B4C464F209E51 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Dec 2018 16:29:06 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.38) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Sun, 2 Dec 2018 16:29:08 +0000
Received: from SJCEML521-MBB.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.33]) by SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.100]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Sun, 2 Dec 2018 08:29:01 -0800
From: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>
To: Hannes Gredler <hannes@gredler.at>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
CC: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Routing for Spine-Leaf Topology" - draft-shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext-07
Thread-Index: AQHUidmVWciJv+aKoUynGflpCsnMjqVsHN4A//+HrAA=
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2018 16:29:00 +0000
Message-ID: <93707C1C-3598-415F-A071-071E96A9F594@huawei.com>
References: <4221EF3E-E369-469D-AAAC-F8DDE24E981E@cisco.com> <4C11ECD7-A061-400A-BEFC-44BC4ED60836@gredler.at>
In-Reply-To: <4C11ECD7-A061-400A-BEFC-44BC4ED60836@gredler.at>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.212.244.112]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_93707C1C3598415FA071071E96A9F594huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/QJvFZxFt-Bp7TtPr49_kZvO2jxo>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Routing for Spine-Leaf Topology" - draft-shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext-07
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2018 16:29:13 -0000

Support.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Hannes Gredler <hannes@gredler.at>
Date: Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 7:46 AM
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Routing for Spine-Leaf Topology" - draft-shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext-07

support

On 02.12.2018, at 01:54, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>> wrote:
This begins a two-week WG adoption call for the subject draft. As anyone who has been following the topic knows, there are a lot of proposal in this space. However, as WG co-chair, I believe this simple IS-IS extension doesn’t really conflict with any of the other more disruptive flooding proposals. Also, it is more mature and there is some implementation momentum. Note that I’m making every attempt to be transparent and it is perfectly ok to disagree with me. Please post your comments to this list before 12:00 AM, December 16th, 2018.

With respect to the more disruptive proposals, we are discussing our next steps.

Thanks,
Acee
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email