Re: [mpls] Missing RFC in draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap?
Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Thu, 05 February 2015 14:10 UTC
Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 733D01A889A for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:10:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 i27ankMYqzqd for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:10:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A539B1A888A for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:10:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.12] (unknown [49.149.205.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BEFAB18013E4; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 15:10:05 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <54D379B8.3010109@pi.nu>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 22:10:00 +0800
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com>, "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "'Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)'" <mustapha.aissaoui@alcatel-lucent.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
References: <4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340D947C1FAE@US70UWXCHMBA04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340D947E9729@US70UWXCHMBA01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <027a01d04134$44d92250$ce8b66f0$@olddog.co.uk> <D0F8DF81.421E6%wesley.george@twcable.com>
In-Reply-To: <D0F8DF81.421E6%wesley.george@twcable.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/dsdcZO72bTUVtlLC_LfD4COF5kY>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Missing RFC in draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap?
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 14:10:26 -0000
Wes, Tnx - I was about to sit down and write pretty much the same mail, a further comment would be that doing a gap analysis is always at risk of not cover 100%, but that that on the other hand is not a real problem. what we need now is some way of following how the gaps evolves/closes and this could be handle as part of that. /Loa On 2015-02-05 21:58, George, Wes wrote: > The discussion went like this: > > By the time we were made aware of this, the document was already in > auth48, and we did not think that the addition of an informational > reference was something that we could credibly do during auth48, which is > intended for minor wording and formatting tweaks only. This would have > required recalling the document and putting it back through the process, > and we didn't see this update as being critical to the document's quality. > > The way that we left it was that this could certainly be filed via the > errata process if the WG thinks that it is important, but it could also be > tracked via whatever means we decide to track the gaps (see other thread). > > Thanks, > > Wes > > > On 2/5/15, 6:09 AM, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote: > >> Hmmm, >> >> There was a thread between the authors and chairs discussing this, but it >> wasn't >> summarised back to the list. >> >> Could someone do that, please. >> >> Adrian >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Aissaoui, >>> Mustapha >>> (Mustapha) >>> Sent: 04 February 2015 23:15 >>> To: mpls@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [mpls] Missing RFC in draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap? >>> >>> Dear all, >>> I appreciate if the authors provided some input on this question. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Mustapha. >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Aissaoui, >>> Mustapha >>>> (Mustapha) >>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 12:17 PM >>>> To: mpls@ietf.org >>>> Subject: [mpls] Missing RFC in draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap? >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> I recently was made aware of RFC 5549 which seems to cover a couple >>> of the >>>> gaps in draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap: >>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5549 >>>> >>>> RFC 5549 extends MP-BGP with the ability for an IPv4 NLRI (AFI=1, >>> SAFI=1), >>>> labeled IPv4 NLRI (AFI=1, SAFI=4), and VPN-IPv4 NLRI (AFI=1, >>> SAFI=128) to >> use >>>> an IPv6 next-hop. This would I believe cover scenario 2 in sections >>> 3.3.2, >> 3.3.2.1, >>>> and 3.3.2.1 for the above types of routes. >>>> >>>> I missed this during the MPLS-RT review and I appreciate if the >>> authors >> could >>>> confirm my observation. >>>> >>>> I apologize if this was already discussed. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Mustapha. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpls mailing list >>>> mpls@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpls mailing list >>> mpls@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpls mailing list >> mpls@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > > > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > -- Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64
- [mpls] Missing RFC in draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-g… Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)
- Re: [mpls] Missing RFC in draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-on… Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)
- Re: [mpls] Missing RFC in draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-on… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] Missing RFC in draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-on… George, Wes
- Re: [mpls] Missing RFC in draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-on… Loa Andersson