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

Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com> Thu, 03 October 2019 15:42 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 3DA0F1200C3; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 08:42:58 -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=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 FR_Gv276VSCi; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 08:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2e.google.com (mail-io1-xd2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2e]) (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 E161A1200B1; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 08:42:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2e.google.com with SMTP id u8so6623070iom.5; Thu, 03 Oct 2019 08:42:54 -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=eDaAJtp6lvfm8PiTr2kxhsk/D/KK0FXQrOe81MyTX4I=; b=Q644YPEahbsrpOaUAch7upeaQqI6evJ/d8GPSnBg2meKebdJjhqX2y3fznn8wRy/R3 9MwMnwe4jAWZJqZjiJOjSggjAUPbXcN2GqR/ilGpsBbXhU1H3IhsxghONazZoGIUIsJF KK02KNn1XBFOf2NxIrPg4fMdmQGQbYhYgITeuTxEFI9kzSPjeSbkgJ/feYJj31KSPoe0 RLOuxvmjZDzevCebpbT2O9U6SAqe7GGLa3sLN3MzniGrPxCRJThMVyeWO1FE+fReUcMo jfWQHLrq2csY7u0/g1ThYiod98LDF4c5cvOO7+2sB3scfrXxbTYrGXphNJs0YsZ4phZ9 XJjQ==
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=eDaAJtp6lvfm8PiTr2kxhsk/D/KK0FXQrOe81MyTX4I=; b=FUjtBH9Hd1u08hfqG8AL7aQE4Nuc8W6EqbizPPN73pdSNQoPClvbNfdCj7F1V6EO1/ kGTW59rPQONJdb3NZ/9oO1Pa2O2Eeo6wNwk5xLTdufbAfauW5Kqn/dqj0aOb6ONbEY4h ZASmnshwXeb6SvcWCqwo4nOjs7pZa81KC9RL1x5+h2Hm+sYzjec74QETUEiYYiLCfOAN U4S3W0r67/0T96kFJpIOLvzJEoPLnE0XG2SAbI4A6xlQZmnj5wSitqYStcMbASa2oyj/ MY0vAxNHmwzMlLpkS2MK6agn45a0Qctj4t7MBLOWfKUw+6k8KFzOHIV0oeVCPmkRxqrX acNQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUt3kiUpFnFxocxCO3R+66yd/OuVc7biMSWVCTJ//6Yc/uXUsgy EeT5K90lSX+1lynNwSsuiiPhzAD1b9QE+t2mdi0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxdM7AJ74FmRoQvJypzFRHM01zGkRUkdHeVC4N4Mz05xyvT3l+p5Yk7mW477JkubJRmDj9akcFqmMYqGVa/1cE=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:c0d2:: with SMTP id t18mr2670721ilf.239.1570117374284; Thu, 03 Oct 2019 08:42:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DM5PR05MB35489E9A98D0A9508C9158CAD4B30@DM5PR05MB3548.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR05MB35489E9A98D0A9508C9158CAD4B30@DM5PR05MB3548.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 08:42:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+wi2hMr5XRAYjYDH2d4a4EzTnvFgR9zFfc9ufdVSytTyNU8bg@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="000000000000599b2a05940370c3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/tWzS08Xhy668-1ZkexN4zUDW8yE>
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 15:42:59 -0000

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
>