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

Kazuki Shimizu <kazubu@bgp.jp> Sat, 14 September 2019 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <kazubu@jtime.net>
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 9C2FA12001E for <rift@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 12:51:19 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bgp-jp.20150623.gappssmtp.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 I1aJYYiPP0I3 for <rift@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 12:51:16 -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 9EA99120041 for <rift@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 12:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd34.google.com with SMTP id r26so69910820ioh.8 for <rift@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 12:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bgp-jp.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Af8+VBA3i1qzE7N131XmCn1dTVsS/LB3ZhssgWY1fVI=; b=h/daPk3UF+nrcF0Xj05eeMlFtnTud9jepxDktuHgUdtQUtvS0Ox9jOCE1pTnH2+5yT Y2bI/p4KO9Q7GMhiwCed63Zvf//XMsp0EkWMEH1M0Ar+vGVNNk3y8kAciR47Xj9yh0eO +x9Q/5NAODLrJePrA3mDLl2WFRqOUh1cPS3FDK80uEFTHMLoTD08CMFbhVoTSf/Zbct/ DLiYepdzs1UE5bGCpbZn+84ZXBhGPnFUq+7kLDvHHaA43VW/4Vz1TnxWpLyP/whRitJN ilklJEyg7azCU0/xZuWUdVgGAJNn/WCer/uAxcOAZ+JdT5tfSxQkOxcDaM4ETKZIoBio rcpQ==
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Af8+VBA3i1qzE7N131XmCn1dTVsS/LB3ZhssgWY1fVI=; b=F5j/c396W3XlUK91nkN7msbpQYZRwM+634cH6ePLTOENM89zUoeqHgHP+v9zB+Qwsy r2dlGui05BVeoQBtZ0H7RpDNhzBkkagWhexsyJnTmsLkPldpYrPpOBoiqNSaGW8PMm3+ bGByDXpIXpmoOhk97NE6w3QmO3NrUbCZW6MEta6CFQq0KQ2UlaIbQ58zXPjHLm5kqq8q eM4tGWwka5wnmu3CQtwc0Hr8PAzUVmp+8SMhBQwsQJA6rWoSkQdd1ry+nX4zMWhRnh0D TaRCYR8ElscT4kjtENPJ8n5vxGwX9VuYZIPiljV5/RZ0SaxNelJMce+om11+xvoLQGbJ 5l0g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW/X2fiwKQ0cRPZ1bs3bJ7UtAgSf1H2DzO50pi3Q3I9BJTaWB+p wrwdnFmyONhvmnlChq1qk9IDKy1LMiEwoTl384YKmazv
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy4xK055uVDThzmN1eOyu+m5yOJzsB+Dt0+aeXoXc4eJmsSMHyJ4XZZQOxK7+HYxi212LG1QhP9uWcUsQmwrV8=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:3e8a:: with SMTP id s132mr6219781jas.66.1568490675464; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 12:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DM5PR05MB35489E9A98D0A9508C9158CAD4B30@DM5PR05MB3548.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR05MB35489E9A98D0A9508C9158CAD4B30@DM5PR05MB3548.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Kazuki Shimizu <kazubu@bgp.jp>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2019 04:51:04 +0900
Message-ID: <CAFe-EmD7huX2kSLAXuJOxM_Eq77aGXiowuMkhXF5YrTa-YbCyw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, "rift@ietf.org" <rift@ietf.org>, "rift-chairs@ietf.org" <rift-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/jZIcWBcmVQS3xB346taiQGrajoY>
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: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 19:51:19 -0000

+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