Return-Path: 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 AC8771B3444; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 19:33:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.501 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 wfghKMUaJ0Wm; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 19:33:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85F1E1A8F3B; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 19:33:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13342; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1454643226; x=1455852826; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=7OZ2ZpOWinPG5X2FOx1FqK6OqGAw9RE0CcJjQg2MvKk=; b=RWcMHBhJ9CLVw8BybzciMGHaKP764XdROo20ebWQF1Vy10y8sqciunDA rIF4ILXLUFSkjHLr66cLZAW94eLDm2Q5zgjYCTFnmNd9X3abrd3gaq89t APLOhyVqFYdcEhQtC9mNRw6vfvy8t5XRIz9fi5Ywl60NT9QQ9FdZsR6WL 0=; X-Files: signature.asc : 841 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DCAgAzF7RW/4wNJK1egm5MUm0GiFWue?= =?us-ascii?q?IITDoFmI4VqAoE6OBQBAQEBAQEBgQqEQQEBAQMBI1YFCwIBCBEDAQIBJwMCAiE?= =?us-ascii?q?RFAkIAgQOBQ6HeAMKCA6xKIoaDYRHAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBDQQEh?= =?us-ascii?q?hKBbYJKgjeCGw2CUyuBDwWSbIQFAYJ9gWRqhhGBc4FbjRaFb4EPg2+DUQEeAUO?= =?us-ascii?q?CAxmBSGoBiH98AQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,398,1449532800"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="235086996" Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 05 Feb 2016 03:33:45 +0000 Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u153Xjqr002076 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 5 Feb 2016 03:33:45 GMT Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com (64.101.220.160) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 22:33:44 -0500 Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) by XCH-RTP-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 22:33:44 -0500 From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" To: Manav Bhatia Thread-Topic: [OSPF] More Comments on OSPF S-BFD Discriminator Thread-Index: AQHRX4CVRGRf7e6ISkyrMJZ6tz0da58cmAUAgAAGoYCAAHcEAIAACy0A Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 03:33:44 +0000 Message-ID: References: <8ef4f51407804a91950ab126277368a6@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.82.214.67] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_61477233-D1AB-4DA3-B963-37FE11ECC53C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator@ietf.org" , OSPF WG List Subject: Re: [OSPF] More Comments on OSPF S-BFD Discriminator X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2016 03:33:48 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_61477233-D1AB-4DA3-B963-37FE11ECC53C Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B2909AE8-9B5F-4F7A-9616-29A553D735A7" --Apple-Mail=_B2909AE8-9B5F-4F7A-9616-29A553D735A7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Thank you Manav! I remember now :-) Done :-) https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator-03 = Thanks, =E2=80=94 Carlos. > On Feb 4, 2016, at 9:53 PM, Manav Bhatia = wrote: >=20 > Hi Carlos, >=20 > I think we need to add the following in the current version: >=20 > =E2=80=9CWhen multiple S-BFD discriminators are advertised how a given = discriminator is mapped to a specific use case is out of scope for this = document.=E2=80=9D >=20 > I dont have the xml with me that i can update. Can you do it if you = have one with you? >=20 > Cheers, Manav >=20 > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) = > wrote: > Hi, Acee, >=20 >> On Feb 4, 2016, at 2:24 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) > wrote: >>=20 >> Hi Carlos, >>=20 >> From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" > >> Date: Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 2:16 PM >> To: Acee Lindem > >> Cc: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" >, Manav Bhatia >, = "draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator@ietf.org = " = >, OSPF WG List = > >> Subject: Re: [OSPF] More Comments on OSPF S-BFD Discriminator >>=20 >> Hi, Acee, >>=20 >> Following up on your note below regarding = draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator, could you request publication and = send this document to the IESG? >>=20 >> Has the document been updated with the proposed text? It hasn=E2=80=99t= been modified since Sept 24, 2015. >>=20 >=20 > Yes. The only text modification proposed and to be implemented was = done here: > = https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator-0= 2.txt = >=20 > I do not believe there was anything else pending. Do you mean = something else? >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > Carlos. >=20 >> Thanks, >> Acee >>=20 >>=20 >> [BTW, its sibling document on ISIS is already in IESG ballot.] >>=20 >> Thanks! >>=20 >> =E2=80=94 Carlos. >>=20 >>> On Nov 11, 2015, at 4:16 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) > wrote: >>>=20 >>> I was more concerned about the consumer of the information than the = IGPs. I did look at base S-BFD draft and I agree this unspecified. = Let=E2=80=99s go forward than with the proposed text and I will request = publication. >>>=20 >>> Thanks, >>> Acee >>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_B2909AE8-9B5F-4F7A-9616-29A553D735A7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Thank you Manav! I remember now :-)

Done :-)

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discri= minator-03

Thanks,

=E2=80=94 Carlos.

On = Feb 4, 2016, at 9:53 PM, Manav Bhatia <manavbhatia@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Carlos,

I think we need to add the following in = the current version:

=E2=80=9CWh= en multiple S-BFD discriminators are advertised how a given = discriminator is mapped to a specific use case is out of scope for this = document.=E2=80=9D

I = dont have the xml with me that i can update. Can you do it if you have = one with you?

Cheers, Manav

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 1:17 AM, = Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpignata@cisco.com> wrote:
Hi, Acee,

On Feb 4, 2016, at 2:24 PM, Acee Lindem = (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:

Hi Carlos, 

From: "Carlos = Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
Date: Thursday, = February 4, 2016 at 2:16 PM
To: Acee Lindem = <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: "Les Ginsberg = (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, Manav Bhatia <manavbhatia@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator@ietf.org>, OSPF WG = List <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] = More Comments on OSPF S-BFD Discriminator

Hi, Acee,

Following up on your note below regarding = draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator, could you request publication and = send this document to the IESG?

Has the document been updated with the proposed text? It = hasn=E2=80=99t been modified since Sept 24, 2015. 


Yes. The only = text modification proposed and to be implemented was done = here:
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-disc= riminator-02.txt

I do not believe there was anything else pending. Do you mean = something else?

Thanks!

Carlos.

Thanks,
Acee


[BTW, its sibling document on ISIS is already in IESG = ballot.]

Thanks!

=E2=80=94 Carlos.

On Nov 11, 2015, at 4:16 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:

I was more concerned about the consumer of the information than the = IGPs. I did look at base S-BFD draft and I agree this unspecified. = Let=E2=80=99s go forward than with the proposed text and I will request = publication. 

Thanks,
Acee 



= --Apple-Mail=_B2909AE8-9B5F-4F7A-9616-29A553D735A7-- --Apple-Mail=_61477233-D1AB-4DA3-B963-37FE11ECC53C Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWtBgYAAoJEIXgpQGOZny9t28QAK/VbmabMCqfxU6X6mCeUGaK 3P+KH8BwvKnPuMuvTw1rmuM+Kx3ZrvuVfBS/pSvhfn/K210lMSSvqhP38MFEuEHq QeZ4u/II+79T8GgAWIKjwecp7h8dTgdHbweQx06xubyEdfkPp1qEXq6ybhkbJ2v5 Lt8Epkn1RQGfA5pGHla7t52OcQ0DdwcZUeaz7ksuZ5TH5ZGC8ldwaRe2xxyxZQZy pBv+bMwN+TCKIc+85ZPFVTVr/j81zhBKW6KzqN1Y9OqAPgPp5wVPOIWC4kH4EsF7 pSraq7XfzLmyrcdLuAXaPw3uVjV5+WUn4VZ4iz67HszY3AirQX7IyxX2oGOvI/IF MQ3mfu21qDUaDMhrepZbNkWxFJViSljX8TrH4RK+uazjMQRRTzy+mygHnqYODc/g saRf5s3OFW5LTBKCkK5SrQnSNF/CZgvTwv2ccqzJg4Lhgb26mT5eiFMLaRg4l00S splXWO7kfYtEAeUjtzegadWPAzZVO4q7IwULQ4j96iJi1vCXSg0VZv6CzIePIQc7 oCku/hUK5/LCrwWxDYLWRyz1glil+48d+IJb1m0FDKZjDMoqxIWiHcZhiJVfq4qk EnyAwG8+SDhfA01EFrWTFF85i4vABXWTqFXTZSrE26X1/UXEvXDBYI4/KKkNk+GL jo3XKlc2N4cyvB8AnlM+ =maLW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_61477233-D1AB-4DA3-B963-37FE11ECC53C--