Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Thu, 11 May 2017 17:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA20A129C16 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 May 2017 10:05:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.604
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.604 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 l2tGRtnzWlc0 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 May 2017 10:05:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 192F412EC96 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 May 2017 10:00:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=814; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1494522060; x=1495731660; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=eFaW416cuR+KjgJ2zMmu8Xto68Y3D//1vhA59oqJ8p8=; b=N1/DU10JaFEDAr2v3EhyESDXAH5mEm/JoujaOgH6S2urrRA/V6MQjgVg jccA8wVkIS1R5sORFu37usfAMs9rm/Nbrl/p+HEp/WORi72Vn0tsiBdN2 +DyEeTN3cqpZkMgdRarjmqk1rQxzA9r5ZGCJX1PJs3/YnjhUbTmb1khER M=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,325,1491264000"; d="scan'208";a="694355254"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 May 2017 17:00:58 +0000
Received: from [10.147.24.66] ([10.147.24.66]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v4BH0vV5009648; Thu, 11 May 2017 17:00:57 GMT
Message-ID: <591498C9.3010701@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 19:00:57 +0200
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: prz <prz@zeta2.ch>
CC: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
References: <D530EF1D.ACB7C%acee@cisco.com> <D53106AD.ACBA9%acee@cisco.com> <c74bd39c55533350e96a1884b7ed9af1@zeta2.ch> <D5320E98.ACF48%acee@cisco.com> <cd38c9344603d9733413bda06ccc6003@zeta2.ch> <D5337994.AD4ED%acee@cisco.com> <c5fb4ee5708a4caab2029943dd2e8eae@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <7eea417112171448d368d007ae0a5da4@zeta2.ch> <D5352E8F.ADC9D%acee@cisco.com> <60799ba9ffb14830d775f19dd05b7e26@zeta2.ch> <59119FD0.4050109@cisco.com> <d56d13731a9c647e78b8d10e300362d0@zeta2.ch> <59142717.80909@cisco.com> <b0f436ff98b12e441f36e46adc95d403@zeta2.ch>
In-Reply-To: <b0f436ff98b12e441f36e46adc95d403@zeta2.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/c_YslZqlWFjvl2zQEaIv3Sc5JvM>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 11 May 2017 17:05:48 -0000

Hi Tony,

On 11/05/17 18:37 , prz wrote:
> <lots of "yes, needed and will be done" ... cut out :->
>
>>>
>>> So, overall I think we agree on scope of the problem that needs to be
>>> addressed so we get a coherent set of standards out
>>
>> so would you agree to make this a WG document?
>
> Hey Peter,
>
> yes, given the backward compat section addresses all the issues and the
> signaling states/transitions are properly
> written down as you indicated I see how the idea has merit to be taken
> on. I do see some holes in what you suggest
> as behavior but that can be discussed through/ironed out.

right.

>
> And yes, from all I gathered so far there seems to be some unnumbered
> 4203 around and needs to be paid attention to.

agree.

thanks,
Peter

>
> --- tony
>
> .
>