IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF Extensions to Support Maximally Redundant Trees" - draft-atlas-ospf-mrt-03

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Mon, 03 November 2014 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 169A21A6FEF for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 10:32:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 ewxQH3ZLKOex for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 10:32:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD8961A1B70 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 10:32:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1411; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1415039541; x=1416249141; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=xNzHtWbg8y9mn/qGW9D4XyqoNtuT7rCm3eeOKIv2nUQ=; b=KLbR0whlhzo9HpkJvZ6dCay2CY1MZ4BJn5uBPVh7dB9LtH6tQlPH7jJv 8B7XFFPVqvoVsX4aKOJWrmf8oDYSJulWautS5wJMzpPy9lK2Jxw8nRHGJ zC8oCukcj8EIlKwSb08PeVq83fb9wM/5iZX93oIU+3+qNxuW+bNHwoX0L k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhcFAAfJV1StJA2B/2dsb2JhbABcgw5UWATNfAqHTQKBJRYBAQEBAX2EAwEBBAEBAWsbAgEIGCMLJwslAgQBEohBDcgaAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBFgSRF4RLBYs4hmKLZ4Exg02NSYQJgjSBRGyBSIEDAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,308,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="369200247"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Nov 2014 18:32:20 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com [173.37.183.82]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sA3IWJcj001907 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <ospf@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 18:32:20 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.61]) by xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com ([173.37.183.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 12:32:19 -0600
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <stbryant@cisco.com>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF Extensions to Support Maximally Redundant Trees" - draft-atlas-ospf-mrt-03
Thread-Index: AQHP93FQCqOuGAAuIkuxwA9maUkTeJxPhWoA///FdIA=
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 18:32:19 +0000
Message-ID: <D07D33F4.7512%acee@cisco.com>
References: <D07CF958.7433%acee@cisco.com> <5457B4FE.2060505@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5457B4FE.2060505@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.204]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <E1CFE8DEC5953444A2F0F663439BF751@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/LPCek6zoUBt04izjhi7SQ0GzGL4
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF Extensions to Support Maximally Redundant Trees" - draft-atlas-ospf-mrt-03
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 18:32:22 -0000

Hi Stewart, 
I agree. We would not progress this document prior to the RTGWG
progression of the base MRT documents. Also, if the RTGWG documents change
status, then we¹d expect the companion OSPF document to also change
status. 
Thanks,
Acee 

On 11/3/14, 12:01 PM, "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <stbryant@cisco.com>
wrote:

>On 03/11/2014 14:20, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>> The base MRT specifications are rtgwg WG documents. Additionally, this
>> document now uses the OSPFv2 link extensions that we have converged upon
>> for OSPFv2 protocol extension. Hence, the chairs believe this document
>>is
>> ready for a WG adoption poll.
>>
>> Please indicate your support (or concerns) for adopting this as a WG
>> Document.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -Abhay
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> OSPF@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>
>A comment that I made over on the MPLS list.
>
>I am not convinced that MRT has the degree of maturity that we would
>normally
>require for a routing protocol intended for deployment as part of a major
>IGP. This is obviously a discussion that needs to happen in RTGWG.
>
>I would therefore suggest that whilst the WG may adopt this component
>draft, it needs to sequence publication behind a number of the main MRT
>drafts and set the track accordingly.
>
>- Stewart
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email