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

Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com> Fri, 13 September 2019 20:21 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 1D9FD1200FF; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:21:45 -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 kYkZ_FmkBLWG; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd34.google.com (mail-io1-xd34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d34]) (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 0E475120116; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd34.google.com with SMTP id f4so64652950ion.2; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:21:42 -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=gAhkBzxYhJ5uf/FjlYsKMqeu/CbwnEsygvKpS8CxF/0=; b=MPKQq3WU81q82b4N9dB8Z7cfFa+YJ8zfMvforRGe6GnR8wFmYwaBk0gET0UhRf6cpp gSyn7rD0uW6yIfM8FrBmdTw4InV+CawDeT4nFlMLej71cFYzxdTyctbaokbVifp1h2Co o8Z/h1zvgmKsIflUXLD215qRALvAXotmlPscH9/m3o2Ohciv0jPlYOnMBTC8fm5IGpQJ yrL1ExVdN1e0xSx/zFgouAk3nHzy4QNaYSWG5T9GAK/qxF02Kgf2BrLDr8N8S4+TM7Iv DqQ58o4r5gaEYWPYNeYIChj4uolgvfcsKKoSbPlB3oP+WB7Zl/lW7yxP9rfTgTgDrIZf LT+A==
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=gAhkBzxYhJ5uf/FjlYsKMqeu/CbwnEsygvKpS8CxF/0=; b=q+iOehtWjWwm934Oerx0DyLMd1wpUh0jn//7OJ+JpWJzFxjLNabttgITieL15Z5jAC gL+v6xiqNjVOHOIqlv4lPd2tjhQzV6setmHrxEgkoLxmi9i03h9ARQU8CuEvadOYZnvw aJn6Ubn5C89bt1GIgO83as2DyyV2aRHFmPuZ8k80iSqa2+I/nN9Lw3215PlJDrtJgYZO mMv+6xflqCshG13KwuvvHeKKbTujoPxouHmswsXgFMa0WoOps6KQ7zlJ9n169OA4g20A 4l+oLZ4DRuLYbzNj2c/PjeGc965tjsygi0Ull4fpkp10eQXP5qtV8TjYtTJXdEEVvfey cqXQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX+Jk/lt73pnJdH2AXClFvEKGaNsUTFVBYXH6Mv0Ls78rFi8WlJ hDOXD6ZPLUL3N80zJ/fpcumYyil/a3yPLiMOWws=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwKIk9DGVnCFBe0PHbGi6EZiGr1JvqOfo21D7Bog6IVK4gQjengtBboqqU+KfWjw6PN4ix1uDqjbDf8uM72vcg=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:b445:: with SMTP id d66mr2020905iof.269.1568406101359; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DM5PR05MB35489E9A98D0A9508C9158CAD4B30@DM5PR05MB3548.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CACh9UOT_FqSB=P0hObLFcPXOpABCCqmefn-RmS-7u-6Am0GyEQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACh9UOT_FqSB=P0hObLFcPXOpABCCqmefn-RmS-7u-6Am0GyEQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:21:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+wi2hO07bjsqNNueO8zbUECZQj3-iYPd+wkiF-KUW9Grp4nGA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alankar Sharma <as3957@gmail.com>
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="000000000000890dce059275009c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/VX0jyzqBGkvsPLwmXDQO4glgx0I>
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 20:21:45 -0000

+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
>