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

Bruno Rijsman <brunorijsman@gmail.com> Sat, 14 September 2019 14:15 UTC

Return-Path: <brunorijsman@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 0ACD41200C3; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 07:15:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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] 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 aGZorxYkAJuU; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 07:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x531.google.com (mail-ed1-x531.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::531]) (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 F15661200B9; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 07:15:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x531.google.com with SMTP id z9so29367811edq.8; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 07:15:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=uwLcNHJDkZgQ+Mv+ZpWoBTYwOZdXqWsqLiJRxvUQ40Q=; b=O8yhGLABb9vjj2MjQ3oOfrxeq3h8OgX4zJ/Ekpiuj9clIANeHHG1Xl/uVUMwQviIJh csTVU7ZOwH5BFVvR4NURkbdk0BCDI/duMgFQoGw1KCNOX7FqN2MXRntB8o+L5fXNhvLl o6YBBEPO3d3rZl9YeAEEIrzbOVgwYwtETazdbb73m2kcG2k26CGYOtOtjmxLuWrkBWxR pj2gQctHUDBgVOhkcZ/nF1P9EbH79y/597lv6OhhWwCyaILbGcArr7phkNe4JowN3bG/ 0kLCcBYTMeizdmgmBDOpVwbqgK5Np6uGcdJ7W4mw9mk72eIX+70jwAPwfDgwhrSiyoIM WGug==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=uwLcNHJDkZgQ+Mv+ZpWoBTYwOZdXqWsqLiJRxvUQ40Q=; b=PeumkLAMIUw3UAqCfQhErNmtVgJjKVwulbamaN8NF6WMkbBvHklY08PgfF4ecLW+fU BDsQRIbMleI2fD9r8MeyZ+9P/efzxYsYENtUWR0FdiVGPoez1YeOiCOsH3NVzc9uq2EH p9Xhz4L/Li/KFJdM2Qmr9bfL70E6khoE2Xt/hQO8WODMwpWw6FMZ5NZkYTi2Ka9YENtr gB2vrFP01HpH7n7QnzR0honGokWlVe3j9FV6gIjhA4OcxYvrsza5TDzhdQXIPXCUMVlO PfjqrEOuZm4lrHtLmS6vBmWAS0Ey9pGERAOvxZnaUIwwmZxp/FqLBD9hrWuLN0JiM6r1 zs0g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUK7lfmX7PMI4n8MwOTfiuVrKEFb7nVEXB7qrSd/uN5mQXyGsvf OkCBGnX6X+EbF5dS1rZBAZ/USzvZIvM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzzmUfnKGVEZLg/OJKvzN+sAJwds3X91eTtSGqFJPqnJ7S6KnpV2iocbRW5wv3/EhISGu3xYQ==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:de0b:: with SMTP id h11mr52287995edv.109.1568470553220; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 07:15:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.4.143] (mailrelay.dok.info. [95.128.90.69]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s21sm5951530edi.85.2019.09.14.07.15.52 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 14 Sep 2019 07:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bruno Rijsman <brunorijsman@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <281BBD7A-BCD7-410F-8D46-EFAD6846A1E4@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_912E56D0-04C8-4278-B3E2-2DB682EE4F0F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 16:15:51 +0200
In-Reply-To: <5d7cb101.1c69fb81.f3a96.9385@mx.google.com>
Cc: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>, Alankar Sharma <as3957@gmail.com>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, "rift@ietf.org" <rift@ietf.org>, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "don.fedyk" <don.fedyk@gmail.com>
To: "rift-chairs@ietf.org" <rift-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <5d7cb101.1c69fb81.f3a96.9385@mx.google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/n5CRvjaX-owMCfLOEINWf48-yoo>
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 14:15:58 -0000

I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR

— Bruno

> On Sep 14, 2019, at 11:21 AM, don.fedyk <don.fedyk@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> Not aware of any undisclosed IPR.
> 
> Don
> 
> 
> 
> Sent via mobile. 
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
> Date: 9/14/19 8:26 AM (GMT+00:00)
> To: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>om>, Alankar Sharma <as3957@gmail.com>
> Cc: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>om>, rift-chairs@ietf.org, rift@ietf.org, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Rift] WGLC, IPR and Implementation polling for draft-ietf-rift-rift-08
> 
>  
> 
> +1
> 
>  
> 
> not aware of any undisclosed IPR
> 
>  
> 
> Pascal
> 
>  
> 
> From: RIFT <rift-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Tony Przygienda
> Sent: vendredi 13 septembre 2019 22:21
> To: Alankar Sharma <as3957@gmail.com>
> Cc: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>om>; rift-chairs@ietf.org; rift@ietf.org; Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Rift] WGLC, IPR and Implementation polling for draft-ietf-rift-rift-08
> 
>  
> 
> +1
> 
>  
> 
> not aware of any undisclosed IPR
> 
>  
> 
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 1:06 PM Alankar Sharma <as3957@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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 <mailto:rift-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Tony Przygienda
> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 3:06 AM
> To: rift@ietf.org <mailto: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 <mailto:RIFT@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rift <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rift>
> _______________________________________________
> RIFT mailing list
> RIFT@ietf.org <mailto:RIFT@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rift <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rift>_______________________________________________
> RIFT mailing list
> RIFT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rift