Return-Path: X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E5B3120721 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 10:55:08 -0700 (PDT) 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 HD_WOH9Fr58Z for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 10:55:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-x232.google.com (mail-oi0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::232]) (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 51E79132335 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 10:55:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi0-x232.google.com with SMTP id r9so1698942oie.3 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 10:55:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0kXNZLlxC8547SEf4NymXcdanAiW/Ufs3/bxun0DglE=; b=qyseL2CAjq5gD5Gjem7rVhRTY/K/4/aeDj0dBViCebN/repEFOxZ5ED9D0Bl7+P4QH 5vFCfCSOR09zRWqlbZi6sVLhKdEeeWKwinCyTouw2UyXI1gW4EEEwofAG07S65vCa451 I2XHIuhlv9Q2y6I1h+RSESKpEPIyIyvuUU3+fN/gTUmO0qYLWxQG/PIKAHrqRg1A1a1h sdNNqHzdyyh4DpJ+3Q/6QzojP6wHZwMRR8gUek5V39eFPnHPW1O1MsgFLci2tW35R2hK 0owQLu+d/2Go1PNBLY2EYoncp6iViqSMY5+oAbRlCifnXQgeJcpcO5gLUOi9VC2LkEFy Ao0g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0kXNZLlxC8547SEf4NymXcdanAiW/Ufs3/bxun0DglE=; b=RGB71BjIpPr4K1UAzK3TszpB5rDhEMk8FDGW19OtmVYGoBxVHq87cUR/eo/k9nXw/T VHfVsnxts2Zf+jrdLlL7mGWMFZRsXdEQXMEDRNKCv2VSuOlDoSCZ3CnSmDm3S73snLRF FYLcE05MhWutreBMZl/WXkHsMJf/VdBLaJeHHcVqnZZZwT+ORXiL3krsiZ34prdzEAqd Xb3WTvwK5U5a5jlo0Zk70z4uhI0NP80VTdnizOxNVxUh18YCO2z8fNxX4P09dmj5TGk/ mxALKsjFQPtB5qG5txtGtl47kihlNFxkjy7qC7v3E3fSX4OiguYbTuNZxRDAzGdjy3zI l6TA== X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5iSrmbP+ea269dv9TQ6DRHmF4DiVzHV7OTBp9m0kGp6DhwTfvAH 120wQM9PeYgoP9L0aoxsNQiFmPpT1Q== X-Received: by 10.202.230.4 with SMTP id d4mr9646579oih.148.1503597299681; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 10:54:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.232.34 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 10:54:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4C73B148-A6EE-403D-8B0F-4447584F1763@contoso.com> References: <4C73B148-A6EE-403D-8B0F-4447584F1763@contoso.com> From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 13:54:39 -0400 Message-ID: To: Yimin Shen Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1141b602eed78e055783863d" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [mpls] new ver of draft-shen-mpls-egress-protection-framework X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 17:55:08 -0000 --001a1141b602eed78e055783863d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yimin et al, While doing some post-vacation email catchup, I saw Yimin=E2=80=99s email b= elow. I=E2=80=99ve read the draft and I think it=E2=80=99s ready to become an MPL= S WG draft. Of particular importance to me is that it=E2=80=99s consistent with similar wo= rk we did in the PALS WG, RFC 8104. Although interestingly, RFC 8104 isn=E2=80=99= t referenced in the draft, which can be rectified in a future update. I see that Rolf Winter has also submitted some comments on the draft. Once his comments have be addressed, perhaps the draft can be polled for WG adoption. Thanks, Andy On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Yimin Shen wrote: > MPLS WG, > > > > We have uploaded a new version of the draft-shen-mpls-egress-protection-f= ramework. > This draft specifies a generic egress protection framework for > multi-service and multi-transport MPLS networks. It has been presented > several times at IETF, and this latest version provides more improved > clarity. > > > > There have been implementations of this mechanism by vendors, and > deployments in layer-3 VPNs and PWE3 by service providers. We are also > seeing more and more general interests in it. Therefore, we=E2=80=99d lik= e to ask > for your kind feedback and help for us to move this draft towards adoptio= n. > > > > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shen-mpls-egress- > protection-framework-05.txt > > > > Thanks, > > > > -- Yimin Shen > > Juniper Networks > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > > --001a1141b602eed78e055783863d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yimin et al,

While doing some post-vaca= tion email catchup, I saw Yimin=E2=80=99s email below.

I=E2=80=99ve read the draft and I think it=E2=80=99s ready to become an = MPLS WG draft. Of particular importance to me is that it=E2=80=99s consiste= nt with similar work we did in the PALS WG, RFC 8104. Although interestingl= y, RFC 8104 isn=E2=80=99t referenced in the draft, which can be rectified i= n a future update.

I see that Rolf Winter has also= submitted some comments on the draft. Once his comments have be addressed,= perhaps the draft can be polled for WG adoption.

= Thanks,
Andy

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Yimin Shen <= yshen@juniper.net> wrote:

MPLS WG,<= /u>

=C2=A0

We have uploaded a = new version of the draft-shen-mpls-egress-protection-framework. This d= raft specifies a generic egress protection framework for multi-service and = multi-transport MPLS networks. It has been presented several times at IETF, and this latest version provides more imp= roved clarity.

=C2=A0

There have been imp= lementations of this mechanism by vendors, and deployments in layer-3 VPNs = and PWE3 by service providers. We are also seeing more and more general int= erests in it. Therefore, we=E2=80=99d like to ask for your kind feedback and help for us to move this draft towards adop= tion.

=C2=A0

https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-she= n-mpls-egress-protection-framework-05.txt

=C2=A0

Thanks,=

= =C2=A0

-- Yimi= n Shen

Juniper= Networks

=C2=A0


_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls


--001a1141b602eed78e055783863d--