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

Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 27 September 2019 13:45 UTC

Return-Path: <xufeng.liu.ietf@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 A5DF0120866; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 06:45:09 -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=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 2BaGfcmrZB8j; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 06:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2d.google.com (mail-io1-xd2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2d]) (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 BD3C412081F; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 06:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2d.google.com with SMTP id v2so16342890iob.10; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 06:45:06 -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=q203THPhaldt9Mh8DN0yFP1EFooagjGzX9abN1A73Qw=; b=qjIuiAWB/CpGoawj4Knsp/RzBWJp4IE964EmGkg0EuuwXuOXuoDNMq5lK+Zw5QgHMM XTm26yJICErytUQCHt8bKIYPhgzZfivME0Dsqa86CcxOjl2Lsjs+N4xXZw7/J0mbF39S SesFPIutRwid8oMKyXjmkC4Cd20FUio3pBsxjmHonmyBOlsO/ZMw5iZyylmfaVtHUQKm CD0Btxuyj6P/r4laUZRxHJ0ikMTCT5uxSkOKkzk1yHlQamhK8ZuY0fUA5dW0QgnBZwCp msV6omkxBD4eXm5C3H1FN1XnfbyBrtbKo+k8wHWXy/WqezMfaOvA3jijoogYAJlHR95N 7WBA==
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=q203THPhaldt9Mh8DN0yFP1EFooagjGzX9abN1A73Qw=; b=dnIBhR/ARVn68d85SqSEKBrXDJ9kWjPGzjVPonjFv2y6mgBnO94U1pwLSN7XRgjcT6 rgndGloi6Gh9x4p53zfMUvw7YspzFrmIvdj8tRlPjc9VAEZC01UexpjdO91uH48u+4Sk NY+5oIHTPAX//6TyuTCueckG8ESX3KdXT4h90XEevJb3LRNlxl4QlTz6rtSlcwcLr1rt 5pAV8X8mX1fLT9eReU5gizgzuzw6k0mXufeppZCeDjnhsLen8L9FZXdxgEkf47FxrwAn 11RdN1eOMv1T2uO4hsJbOLguQezhrpeTxtY6ZVEaegdyBhIG41uUZTApjmv8JniTRi5K vU6Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUY2LCp2Zqx71U3DE8IXFMQKFJ6SoNGsjXvJuLFg/NnEar8Am8/ nnT2WwqQ1qV+t4MJxBYUyL0rEyQzPwET5UC1sIk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxkNfipoYPgW2jDVhlMAEpczkZWgTQpK9Yi8Eb9CqbnfyCK076PxeiKhnmyTjyk1/A442rRg1PreXRJP5Jf0aw=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:8347:: with SMTP id f68mr4764385ild.216.1569591906068; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 06:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DM5PR05MB35489E9A98D0A9508C9158CAD4B30@DM5PR05MB3548.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR05MB35489E9A98D0A9508C9158CAD4B30@DM5PR05MB3548.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 09:44:55 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEz6PPSZQjrNNQhpkdFFoZYFBAq9FW59XLboXFRgT526S_bgww@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: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000000ee7f05938918a4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/qa-u1QP_5uEucNYznbxD7gipgu4>
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, 27 Sep 2019 13:45:16 -0000

Support.
Thanks,
- Xufeng

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
>