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

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Thu, 03 October 2019 19:14 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@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 7AE50120180; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 12:14:01 -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=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 b5h1WM5b9dLx; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 12:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22b.google.com (mail-oi1-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22b]) (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 BF4221200FE; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 12:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22b.google.com with SMTP id k9so3644008oib.7; Thu, 03 Oct 2019 12:13:58 -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=kl53NgDIZUwCVURW3c3jVWTiHjfgcn3pGB6SPRbt5g0=; b=b/PiwCTl9hnlotfFVkib80xrBB7CdAf17u/bH0B+EjXOrYlLSAOwKrtB0+V8QIOCb8 IUS1K9zyz4hy6PpQiWJrjZll97kioSFnfOnhEnTKJ7Irw6jinWU0H0WZ5vwsS/VYXlcL vEYWlMAAnRjhP45qNyz5UZrL70taCb44hG2C8XqEO4GuS/ggAOHEhtpYaIqKyG//zSXq ZbufXqUXkNAKLVeHQDvLtdUnmLsKw4XdFX0OAykJCYyHqN2fFN89eIkFSPmV9rf3vMQG Cwui0VTdXGIQAquXVRVFRu78Al9tepq/ncyzyOyo4AdW1diJMBrAvXrpSQfXQYNfso18 7hxw==
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=kl53NgDIZUwCVURW3c3jVWTiHjfgcn3pGB6SPRbt5g0=; b=qjrHi9eKBI4StvY+sKVY/zykfBRwGdPQfMo5R1cmqEst2kKMG6raJpzhfRPke2J7Pb uWslBSSuGJJh9g5wxeWy3M2/TWZ3Q4sKtQh4hOAsXMAgvNGR8kfD/Pr+y11JExD1Itsb kwVXkqEIEsxydMoIEQp/hQ5Uwg047naoKZ4oFza4ICRoyV11Cj/Bf6px5iHUvlhJljnr zBG0HYY8GfocIcY5T/8QbvGpNZR1DRbkcefD0vqaxswHJ97OEDYhbV6lMwAMjCAWb9KX ynoPfw8IA4tjJm1owRnHI8lFzwwiTTKk+xJtgdamlLYFkJ97lWACicDCarBrRksmGYmN 1Vsw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUIZp6ZBNLWDhzsD1SyVo471oVSwVrV5pjD6KmhG0fWxgGaL8Qk vLTKVETZo7rO6SiqbCkFb6J0Yd+P5Bit/QKad+I=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxRGEY1G7Y9c9XTWngwjSOQOtwx8uSdZAWlfsnroSpKbWJ8HQxGB1p8A/tp8voH5HVCwaDdfUms7hqP+tOXiuw=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:adc1:: with SMTP id w184mr3942288oie.80.1570130037792; Thu, 03 Oct 2019 12:13:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DM5PR05MB35489E9A98D0A9508C9158CAD4B30@DM5PR05MB3548.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CA+wi2hMr5XRAYjYDH2d4a4EzTnvFgR9zFfc9ufdVSytTyNU8bg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+wi2hMr5XRAYjYDH2d4a4EzTnvFgR9zFfc9ufdVSytTyNU8bg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 15:13:46 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rc8oAfsFoeXg0QG1_w=s9EZGz2970cgx__afat9UFfK=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@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="0000000000002767e805940663b5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/p1rh5W_XNUGKL9g9OHfN3TfWC2A>
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: Thu, 03 Oct 2019 19:14:02 -0000

I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR.

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 11:43 AM Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>; wrote:

> not aware of any undisclosed IPR
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 12:40 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
>