IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Teas] New version of draft-ietf-teas-interconnected-te-info-exchange

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sun, 08 March 2015 18:22 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7D331A00B5 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Mar 2015 11:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 XYEafu4v3w2o for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Mar 2015 11:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7F1F1A0006 for <teas@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Mar 2015 11:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t28IMag5019827; Sun, 8 Mar 2015 18:22:36 GMT
Received: from 950129200 (089144218078.atnat0027.highway.a1.net [89.144.218.78]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t28IMZo8019821 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 8 Mar 2015 18:22:36 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: teas@ietf.org
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2015 18:22:36 -0000
Message-ID: <00c001d059cc$db4ea830$91ebf890$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdBZzNheTZ4xEFF/T3u6noZXtzl1eA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-21386.001
X-TM-AS-Result: No--5.318-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--5.318-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: bmFMcyfDfoBeDtEKgt5AZriMC5wdwKqd0BciT9B07b5rMbakJN8OeVOS 95hWV5LTKOa+i7mFmZvkmehxuLOiwh43bpPn/5bkdiLDwvWethgLitYSIrUiB5TC1rfVPDgkEX4 5YqIU5dSzUZOarCZTLpzFzvc3r0xpZF6ysdFjt0pVnniKh7YTC30tCKdnhB58vqq8s2MNhPB9j2 GwzTE3vSq2rl3dzGQ1P7Kdytmoae7tqy2T1j45Kvt3UM702m078wb5X6grXwaglV+nnZAsLcC+k sT6a9fy
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/RlTYN20p71Ed2yo3BKJhV5DXUnQ>
Cc: draft-ietf-teas-interconnected-te-info-exchange@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [Teas] New version of draft-ietf-teas-interconnected-te-info-exchange
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2015 18:22:41 -0000

Hi,

According to the schedule presented at IETF-91 (in the CCAMP meeting), I have
updated and posted a revision of this I-D.

The changes are:

- Added Section 5.3.3.2  "Mutual Exclusivity" as a severely cut-down
   version of Pavan's suggested text.
- Filled in Section 5.4 about Dynamic Abstraction.
- Filled in Section 5.6 about Address Management.
- New Section 6.4  "Notes on a Solution" using material from John Drake and
   Hannes Gredler.
- Filled in Section 11 "Manageability Considerations".
- Minor tweaks to Section 13 for Security Considerations using comments from
   Xian Zhang.
- Fixed a number of stylistic and typographic issues.

At this point, there are no more sections marked <TBD> and no more editor's
notes. I believe I have addressed all comments from the mailing list(s) and
fulfilled the promises made at IETF-91.

I would really appreciate detailed reviews before asking the chairs to take the
document to last call. Especially: what can we delete? :-)

Thanks,
Adrian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email