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

Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com> Thu, 19 September 2019 16:10 UTC

Return-Path: <tonysietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rift@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rift@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A13AC120807; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 2ifwC4_3YxMj; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2d.google.com (mail-io1-xd2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D86F3120130; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:10:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2d.google.com with SMTP id j4so8949155iog.11; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:10:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FJuifKLwvG/+QQDXnxZOSi9zTrFlXHp/AjEJmoJg23Q=; b=eMHOU1d4ctKY8v4yFL+OoLOIAc9/LihM+4ST8tnouH9r7pUA/FyW2dVj7uPusqYQm4 3A2qxVrI1YKDRsoitokLqncDH7VLRGgjcKo26seh84gOCYEh87/FuWAvaZqaoIyoc/4a epGG1b3df6KcCIzdQFNQDDNkzaQyFjthH668285TFyuII66fCiMjcrdal8wIULfS0fCr ONynHVLROzw7UH46fOUBg9jnBC2LEfTZaj6AqGXSUuDL71/TEsxaXAte7ZFBPZUFyuf2 nhPQizXwyxDagyYXN9GZg+8K5DH1ZytZ91vYHBjgUWM6iDICJJJ46YpPEbEg/Wd0tDce 5Tlw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FJuifKLwvG/+QQDXnxZOSi9zTrFlXHp/AjEJmoJg23Q=; b=qKODUqCtFOROtoG5jPlIhx/P22UKmnOP3f0jWX3DiUFxnrbWSvN9+rZKeiSAJCG8k9 NVjRpncmfeGlJ6AX40fVbfK7O8ORTcY/5/dHGiRUCxhtiqx5pkqZChlNu/gDlEiUypLW Zfw/oqHqKd1BJMj/VWUHTPSBl7Yg+O1G7ZOUPGJ0i556Xd75XSU4P7k+aPEL7afLSxzO jsKTMVv6OTCCD/6K2G1TRxoL2rTX1NxGjrqqaKghKA3irTzaY4FFJfMeuuJZsqT7nHNV cGL29EkGHo09r+W5vdUeHqzgYvonQWIWVfnriA+BHwaTelm8fPRiVyJw3reUEAp3wMss tDgA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVuAN+npx+6gcVT93l4U3NA3GOMBiPu833vuG+dVoggVTSx0eLP gwTLxISviuMj8rPVLIYVqBzpvrqJy6SwyHoObrZgwPTU
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxxgdYqrxDxSTGp29ICmnp9ubQ8NpR7h5NewchN8mQfyLCtl1beZbwfK2GowTFdpy2xqa5SucsUWpd4lk2KyKI=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:246:: with SMTP id 67mr9069763jau.121.1568909435152; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:10:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DM5PR05MB35489E9A98D0A9508C9158CAD4B30@DM5PR05MB3548.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAFe-EmD7huX2kSLAXuJOxM_Eq77aGXiowuMkhXF5YrTa-YbCyw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFe-EmD7huX2kSLAXuJOxM_Eq77aGXiowuMkhXF5YrTa-YbCyw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:09:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+wi2hOvM1vqpDh=_DZTbK7XpGaqL8A7wvdWRWj7qr_4CDOhSQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kazuki Shimizu <kazubu@bgp.jp>
Cc: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, "rift-chairs@ietf.org" <rift-chairs@ietf.org>, "rift@ietf.org" <rift@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000912f0d0592ea31cc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/1nTF9HD6jxplyZwrF_1f2et2JOY>
Subject: Re: [Rift] WGLC, IPR and Implementation polling for draft-ietf-rift-rift-08
X-BeenThere: rift@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of Routing in Fat Trees <rift.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rift>, <mailto:rift-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rift/>
List-Post: <mailto:rift@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rift-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rift>, <mailto:rift-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 16:10:39 -0000

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
>