RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay
<bruno.decraene@orange.com> Tue, 06 June 2017 09:32 UTC
Return-Path: <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3DCA129AEB for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 02:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.389
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.389 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 wvPxoKX7qUBR for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 02:32:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (mta135.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 836F2129B8B for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 02:32:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr00.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.64]) by opfednr25.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id A2A7E1804D5; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:32:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.32]) by opfednr00.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 675D11A006D; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:32:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e92a:c932:907e:8f06]) by OPEXCLILM32.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::8924:188:2124:a046%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0339.000; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:32:26 +0200
From: bruno.decraene@orange.com
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
CC: "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay
Thread-Topic: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay
Thread-Index: AdLb3vVB+stvjRstQSySgkSfkwvpZAA3sw0AAEQueoAANiKJcA==
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 09:32:25 +0000
Message-ID: <11195_1496741546_593676AA_11195_1260_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A31D41930@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <MWHPR05MB2829DC391A9101895C1D297FA9F70@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <D558B7A5.B2045%acee@cisco.com> <dbfe31f4-68c9-6e37-4515-ef99bb217bd5@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <dbfe31f4-68c9-6e37-4515-ef99bb217bd5@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.1]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A31D41930OPEXCLILM21corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/6LeQ64aV00GrMCVRM1ZiKnZU0n0>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 09:32:31 -0000
From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 11:37 AM To: rtgwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay In section 3 it states: This ordered convergence, is similar to the ordered FIB proposed defined in [RFC6976], but limited to only a "one hop" distance. As a consequence, it is simpler and becomes a local only feature not requiring interoperability; at the cost of only covering the transient forwarding loops involving this local router. Thus this mechanism is a private matter to the PLR and therefore does not introduce a requirement for multiple routers to co-operate, it seems like it ought to be informational. [Bruno] It seems to me that LFA and remote LFA are also a local behavior. They both are a STD track document so I don’t find that argument compelling. --Bruno - Stewart On 04/06/2017 00:04, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: I support advancement and publication of this draft. I think we should have the discussion of whether or not it should be standards track, BCP, or informational as invariably this question will arise during all the reviews. Thanks, Acee From: rtgwg <rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net<mailto:cbowers@juniper.net>> Date: Friday, June 2, 2017 at 4:43 PM To: Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>> Subject: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay RTGWG, This email starts the two week WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay/ Please indicate support for or opposition to the publication of this standards track document, along with the reasoning for that support or opposition. IPR: If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to this email stating whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list. The document will not advance to the next stage until a response has been received from each author and each individual that has contributed to the document. The document currently has the following IPR disclosure associated with it. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2565/ This last call will end on Friday June 16th. Thanks, Chris and Jeff _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
- WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay Chris Bowers
- Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay Acee Lindem (acee)
- RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay Chris Bowers
- Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay Stewart Bryant
- Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay Stewart Bryant
- RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay Chris Bowers
- Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay Stewart Bryant
- RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay stephane.litkowski
- RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay bruno.decraene
- RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay bruno.decraene
- RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay bruno.decraene
- Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay Acee Lindem (acee)
- RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay stephane.litkowski
- RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay Chris Bowers
- Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay Pierre Francois
- Re: FW: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-d… Clarence Filsfils