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

Melchior Aelmans <melchior@aelmans.eu> Fri, 13 September 2019 22:09 UTC

Return-Path: <melchior@aelmans.eu>
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 6FA9112011F; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 15:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 KdHs32BZRrPa; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 15:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shared002.synssans.nl (shared002.synssans.nl [195.114.12.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96A751200FA; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 15:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [109.36.142.87] (helo=[100.94.99.185]) by shared002.synssans.nl with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <melchior@aelmans.eu>) id 1i8tkU-0001kg-Lq; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 00:09:02 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Melchior Aelmans <melchior@aelmans.eu>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16G102)
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR05MB35489E9A98D0A9508C9158CAD4B30@DM5PR05MB3548.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 00:09:01 +0200
Cc: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, "rift@ietf.org" <rift@ietf.org>, "rift-chairs@ietf.org" <rift-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F8ACB9DE-E15A-4A3C-806C-4537F634310A@aelmans.eu>
References: <DM5PR05MB35489E9A98D0A9508C9158CAD4B30@DM5PR05MB3548.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Authenticated-Id: melchior@aelmans.eu
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/Bg0IDeyj8gbePYVNS1AKt4R98Dw>
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 22:09:09 -0000

Support!

> Op 13 sep. 2019 om 21:40 heeft Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>; het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 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