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

magno <massimo.magnani@gmail.com> Fri, 13 September 2019 22:01 UTC

Return-Path: <massimo.magnani@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 740F812011C; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 15:01:31 -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=ham 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 3UC-J2YD5Y7i; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 15:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32a.google.com (mail-ot1-x32a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32a]) (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 2478C120116; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 15:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32a.google.com with SMTP id y39so30846269ota.7; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 15:01:28 -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=gdLhgqXZujPC5idMGSKCJBOqJRtmDTVxEb4RzmB/LmE=; b=Y7834rmu2XbjN9lda02yu6CgwwamtO2EDEngTyxn/60gAK+LIlr3cU5vX6sMTslwg2 RAUeIAXLyNEAghV6Mm0juMOH+Xu8msDDYVVH68E4dkqS+vNHAKzX8p0N1C4I9rR2t0nl dS5iocFSXior/kbuDmMq1XFDi3r9Ml2R0L7LfLvJlcLyC5dCvDzLZO0gFH1+Zn+WiIb9 f8NgpiAwpszkLMpoJly3e8Oq8WeYnquaGMToidJY18uvAvmUd2jtP3RXqAUSIM6DGidJ EQnJUzpoQmZhRp3pdfpQDmgXqrIYatgvVMvEPy6LdAQgbLOFE94TN0Am9foyB4W8A+iN cmwg==
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=gdLhgqXZujPC5idMGSKCJBOqJRtmDTVxEb4RzmB/LmE=; b=fRcx7yR2L8CwBXH99XpwofJY1ehVvuxic8wWDz/WOTNN6sLTBGWAsVaTPSRjaV5czw VQ0nzxzkzWB2lS6wUw1SyBjypLSU5Zo0wkPkQAbLaunjLkie+4ESsNQ1Ii8AOCgUaDde Sa47rWiC7ZFiITWSzkcQw2icJEtV9EMayrriyW9wWC21lALiD6Tm1DCdI3N8aoFr83WT XAAWr4Vb/+rAv0BezVJSxqmIDAY6xhBS6rnMQnLEtiKMtHzAP7BiQbxGoVY2UEPpBdKs S7fLh27s17xo1xPuLEQ8+ZJomtdj62LG9FJAWLslG/5+Qt9i2VEe/SHTnbi1v/XzcHDu 080w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW8k0ARlz11af/qBvqcgOVek5vNUW95VE2tORNQcFXrF/8p8j7r YL9Vf880m73NI3e+Hx1Zpx4aNHe9Viage+ypcfeSSM8F1y8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwmLpEFCFTUwIshAzFQAoZqo0ADvpf/4EN+wT/hUixqqxEiTIvHhlsRewes/K20tZpjeZ1u1UiMvjzUX3eyVLA=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:16c6:: with SMTP id l6mr14908230otr.263.1568412087075; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 15:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DM5PR05MB35489E9A98D0A9508C9158CAD4B30@DM5PR05MB3548.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CACh9UOT_FqSB=P0hObLFcPXOpABCCqmefn-RmS-7u-6Am0GyEQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+wi2hO07bjsqNNueO8zbUECZQj3-iYPd+wkiF-KUW9Grp4nGA@mail.gmail.com> <069593B9-FC1C-42A2-87EE-C231087E9F11@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <069593B9-FC1C-42A2-87EE-C231087E9F11@gmail.com>
From: magno <massimo.magnani@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 00:01:15 +0200
Message-ID: <CALv0-dZ-uxAUgPTgT=fH0KyCcn1tUZeBJ985Vnb0qDund2BLGg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "rift@ietf.org" <rift@ietf.org>
Cc: rift-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004fc959059276653e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/4Btk0tZvIURjLN5L1r2sm2TEigA>
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: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 22:01:32 -0000

Support please, customers are very interested.

Thanks
Max,

Il giorno ven 13 set 2019 alle ore 23:50 Krzysztof Szarkowicz <
kszarkowicz@gmail.com>; ha scritto:

> Support,
>
> Not aware of any undisclosed IPR.
>
> Thanks,
> Krzysztof
>
>
> On 2019-Sep-13, at 22:21, Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
> +1
>
> not aware of any undisclosed IPR
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 1:06 PM Alankar Sharma <as3957@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
>> Support.
>> I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alankar Sharma
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:40 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang=
>> 40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>; 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:
>>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>