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

As to implementation polling: Juniper has a -08 conform implementation

I think otherwise e'one's aware of the open source implementation on github
(it's @ -07, will need quick pulling up to -08)

thanks

--- tony

On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 12:51 PM Kazuki Shimizu <kazubu@bgp.jp> wrote:

> +1
>
> Regards,
> Kazuki Shimizu
>
> 2019年9月14日(土) 4:40 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
> <zzhang=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>:
> >
> > 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:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-rift-rift
> .
> >
> > We are also polling for any existing implementation.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Jeff and Jeffrey
> >
> > -------------------------------
> >
> > From: RIFT <rift-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Tony Przygienda
> > Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 3:06 AM
> > To: rift@ietf.org
> > 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
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > --- tony
> > _______________________________________________
> > RIFT mailing list
> > RIFT@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rift
>
> _______________________________________________
> RIFT mailing list
> RIFT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rift
>