Re: [Rift] WGLC,IPR and Implementation polling for draft-ietf-rift-rift-08

<> Sun, 29 September 2019 05:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 505BB12006A for <>; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 22:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.297
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.297 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vajq0IhC_NDU for <>; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 22:58:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 260BB120048 for <>; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 22:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 8ECAF9051BCA28D0CFF5 for <>; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 13:58:13 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ([]) by with SMTP id x8T5viUu007771 for <>; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 13:57:44 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from
Received: from mapi (dgapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid1; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 13:57:43 +0800 (CST)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 13:57:43 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa5d9047d781f598e3
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <>
To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: x8T5viUu007771
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Rift] =?utf-8?q?WGLC=2CIPR_and_Implementation_polling_for_draft?= =?utf-8?q?-ietf-rift-rift-08?=
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of Routing in Fat Trees <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 05:58:22 -0000

Support ++

Best regards,

Corona Wei


发件人:XufengLiu <>
收件人:Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <>rg>;
抄送人:Jeff Tantsura <>; <>; <>rg>;
日 期 :2019年09月27日 22:29
主 题 :Re: [Rift] WGLC,IPR and Implementation polling for draft-ietf-rift-rift-08

RIFT mailing list

- Xufeng

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:40 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <> wrote:

Hi RIFTers,

This email starts WG Last Call, IPR and implementation polling  for our base spec draft-ietf-rift-rift-08. It ends on 9/27.

Please thoroughly review the document and voice your support/objection.

If you’re a co-author/contributor, please explicitly respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the Authors and Contributors.

If you're not a co-author/contributor, you need to respond only if you are aware of any relevant IPR not yet disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.

Currently disclosed IPRs can be found here:

We are also polling for any existing implementation.

Jeff and Jeffrey


From: RIFT <> On Behalf Of Tony Przygienda
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 3:06 AM
Subject: [Rift] LC version -08

LC ready version -08 has been posted 

Last few small changes based on input of people playing with both implementations in different scenarios

* A new prefix tie type has been added PositiveExternalDisaggregationPrefixTIEType since it is necessary to distinguish between normal prefix and external prefix being disaggregated to preserve priorities in complex redistribution scenarios. BTW, negative prefixes are always least preferred and hence they don't need to differentiate. 
* Link pair carries now indication whether BFD is up 9on the link. This allows at the top of the fabric not only see links that are secured and outer keys but also whether link is BFD protected/BFD is up
* NodeCapabilities are required now and minor protocol version is carried since there was no possiblity on adjacency building to check which minor verswion the peer speaks (major is carried in the envelope). Major version compatibility allows to aways decode the model but minor could be used in the future to understand minor schema variations


--- tony 
RIFT mailing list