From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Wed Nov 01 19:55:31 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GfQre-0000wy-TX; Wed, 01 Nov 2006 19:55:26 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GfQrd-0000s9-Ly for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Nov 2006 19:55:25 -0500 Received: from mail1.noc.data.net.uk ([80.68.34.48]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GfQpG-0007UY-GY for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Nov 2006 19:52:59 -0500 Received: from 57-99.dsl.data.net.uk ([80.68.57.99] helo=cortex.aria-networks.com) by mail1.noc.data.net.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 1GfQpX-0008UC-00 for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Nov 2006 00:53:15 +0000 Received: from your029b8cecfe ([194.209.131.192] RDNS failed) by cortex.aria-networks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 2 Nov 2006 00:52:50 +0000 Message-ID: <09bf01c6fe19$3637c560$cf849ed9@your029b8cecfe> From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "Bill Fenner" , References: <5.0.0.25.2.20061030231141.048e8a60@zircon.juniper.net><453F7740.9000404@cisco.com> <453F6F40.8070506@juniper.net><5.0.0.25.2.20061024170158.052b9b30@zircon.juniper.net><5.0.0.25.2.20061031165759.0386b550@zircon.juniper.net> <200611010442.kA14gLBN015084@bright.research.att.com> Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 00:48:08 -0000 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Nov 2006 00:52:50.0358 (UTC) FILETIME=[38953D60:01C6FE19] X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 Cc: rcallon@juniper.net, Ron Bonica , rick@rhwilder.net, jari.arkko@piuha.net, Mark Townsley Subject: Re: Review request for L3VPN Multicast X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Adrian Farrel List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Hi Bill, I can take a look. I'm not an IP mcast expert, but I have done a bit around this work when the effort started up, and I was involved in the MPLS-TE P2MP stuff. Would still welcome some support from an IP mcast person. A ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Fenner" To: Cc: ; "Ron Bonica" ; ; ; "Mark Townsley" Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 3:42 AM Subject: Review request for L3VPN Multicast > > Dear Routing Directorate, > > We (the routing ADs) are looking for a few volunteers to review the > L3VPN Multicast specification (how multicast is supported over > L3VPNs), from a routing directorate point of view. The most recent > draft of this is: > > Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs > draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-03.txt > > For any volunteers willing to take on this task, or for anyone > generally interested in the topic, there will be a detailed overview > of this specification at the L3VPN WG meeting next week > (tuesday afternoon sessions 1). > > Thanks, > Bill and Ross > > > > From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 13 07:03:57 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GjaXZ-0003Cd-6S; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:03:53 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GjaXX-0003CV-Qb for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:03:51 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc14.comcast.net ([63.240.77.84]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GjaXW-0004zc-Et for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:03:51 -0500 Received: from frogbits.attlabs.att.com (c-67-188-114-134.hsd1.ca.comcast.net[67.188.114.134]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc14) with ESMTP id <2006111312034401400md8due>; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:03:49 +0000 Received: from frogbits.attlabs.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by frogbits.attlabs.att.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id kADC09nn049391 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 04:00:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fenner@frogbits.attlabs.att.com) Received: (from fenner@localhost) by frogbits.attlabs.att.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id kADC085b049390 for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 04:00:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fenner) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 04:00:08 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200611131200.kADC085b049390@frogbits.attlabs.att.com> From: fenner@research.att.com (Bill Fenner) To: rtg-dir@ietf.org (Routing Area Directorate) X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2a9ffb6f997442a3b543bcdaf483b990 Subject: IESG agenda for 2006-11-16 telechat. X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org IESG Agenda Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2006-11-16). Updated 2:2:23 EDT, November 13, 2006 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Administrivia 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Bash the Agenda 1.3 Approval of the Minutes of the past telechat 1.4 List of Remaining Action Items from Last Telechat 1.5 Review of Projects 2. Protocol Actions Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable basis on which to build the salient part of the Internet infrastructure? If not, what changes would make it so?" 2.1 WG Submissions 2.1.1 New Item Area Date OPS Information Model for IP Flow Information Export (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 7 draft-ietf-ipfix-info-14.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Dan Romascanu INT Mobile IPv6 Operation with IKEv2 and the revised IPsec Architecture (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 7 draft-ietf-mip6-ikev2-ipsec-07.txt Note: PROTO Shepherd is Basavaraj Patil Token: Jari Arkko Mapping of IP/MPLS packets into IEEE 802.17 INT May 3 (Resilient packet ring) Networks (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 7 draft-ietf-iporpr-basic-03.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Mark Townsley INT PWE3 ATM Transparent Cell Transport Service (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 7 draft-ietf-pwe3-cell-transport-06.txt Token: Mark Townsley SEC DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 7 draft-ietf-dkim-base-06.txt Token: Russ Housley Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.3 OPS Medium Attachment Units (MAUs) (Proposed Standard) - 6 of 7 draft-ietf-hubmib-rfc3636bis-05.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Bert Wijnen is the PROTO shepherd Token: Dan Romascanu RObust Header Compression (ROHC): Corrections TSV and Clarifications to RFC 3095 (Proposed Standard) - 7 of 7 draft-ietf-rohc-rtp-impl-guide-22.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Magnus Westerlund 2.1.2 Returning Item Area Date INT IP Version 6 over PPP (Draft Standard) - 1 of 1 draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02.txt Note: This was in IESG in 2005, though never on the agenda. Got to wait state because of lack of implementation reports from both sides of a test. This is now brought back to the IESG to either approve it as-is, or formally force the WG to downgrade this to PS. Token: Jari Arkko 2.2 Individual Submissions 2.2.1 New Item NONE 2.2.2 Returning Item NONE 3. Document Actions 3.1 WG Submissions Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it covers? If not, what changes would make it so?" 3.1.1 New Item Area Date INT Two-Document ballot: [Open Web Ballot] - 1 of 7 An Architecture for Provider Provisioned CE-based Virtual Private Networks using IPsec (Informational) - 1 of 7 draft-ietf-l3vpn-ce-based-03.txt Applicability Statement for Provider Provisioned CE-based Virtual Private Networks using IPsec (Informational) draft-declercq-l3vpn-ce-based-as-00.txt Token: Mark Townsley INT Three-Document ballot: - 2 of 7 Network based IP VPN Architecture Using Virtual Routers (Informational) - 2 of 7 draft-ietf-l3vpn-vpn-vr-03.txt Using BGP as an Auto-Discovery Mechanism for VR-based Layer-3 VPNs (Informational) draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-08.txt Applicability Statement for Virtual Router-based Layer 3 PPVPN Approaches (Informational) draft-ietf-l3vpn-as-vr-02.txt Token: Mark Townsley APP IMAP ANNOTATE Extension (Experimental) - 3 of 7 draft-ietf-imapext-annotate-16.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Lisa Dusseault Address Resolution Mechanisms for IP INT Datagrams over MPEG-2 Networks (Informational) - 4 of 7 draft-ietf-ipdvb-ar-05.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Mark Townsley INT Security Threats to Network-Based Localized Mobility Management (Informational) - 5 of 7 draft-ietf-netlmm-threats-04.txt Token: Jari Arkko INT IP Address Location Privacy and Mobile IPv6: Problem Statement (Informational) - 6 of 7 draft-ietf-mip6-location-privacy-ps-04.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: PROTO Shepherd is Gopal Dommety . NOTE: There are RFC Editor notes! Token: Jari Arkko INT Two-Document ballot: - 7 of 7 Network Mobility Route Optimization Problem Statement (Informational) - 7 of 7 draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement-03.txt Note: Proto shepherd is TJ Kniveton Network Mobility Route Optimization Solution Space Analysis (Informational) draft-ietf-nemo-ro-space-analysis-03.txt Note: Proto shepherd is TJ Kniveton Token: Jari Arkko 3.1.2 Returning Item NONE 3.2 Individual Submissions Via AD Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it covers? If not, what changes would make it so?" 3.2.1 New Item Area Date GEN Jun 27 Document Shepherding from Working Group Last Call to Publication (Informational) - 1 of 2 draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-08.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Brian Carpenter SEC Key Change Strategies for TCP-MD5 (Informational) - 2 of 2 draft-bellovin-keyroll2385-03.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Russ Housley 3.2.2 Returning Item NONE 3.3 Individual Submissions Via RFC Editor The IESG will use RFC 3932 responses: 1) The IESG has not found any conflict between this document and IETF work; 2) The IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG , but this does not prevent publishing; 3) The IESG thinks that publication is harmful to work in WG and recommends not publishing at this time; 4) The IESG thinks that this document violates the IETF procedures for and should therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG approval; 5) The IESG thinks that this document extends an IETF protocol in a way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG approval. Other matters may be recorded in comments to be passed on to the RFC Editor as community review of the document. 3.3.1 New Item NONE 3.3.2 Returning Item Area Date A Taxonomy and Analysis of Enhancements to INT Mobile IPv6 Route Optimization (Informational) - 1 of 1 draft-irtf-mobopts-ro-enhancements-08.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Mark Townsley 4. Working Group Actions 4.1 WG Creation 4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review NONE 4.1.2 Proposed for Approval NONE 4.2 WG Rechartering 4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF Review Area Date SEC Nov 1 Kitten (GSS-API Next Generation) (kitten) - 1 of 1 Token: Sam 4.2.2 Proposed for Approval Area Date RAI Oct 19 Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep) - 1 of 1 Token: Jon 5. IAB News We Can Use 6. Management Issues 7. Working Group News From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 13 09:34:30 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GjctG-0002Ta-Gj; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 09:34:26 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gh9E5-0004aQ-Vw; Mon, 06 Nov 2006 13:29:41 -0500 Received: from [143.209.238.164] (helo=audl751.usa.alcatel.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gh9E1-0006gY-JP; Mon, 06 Nov 2006 13:29:41 -0500 Received: from usdalsbhs02.ad3.ad.alcatel.com (usdalsbhs02.usa.alcatel.com [172.22.216.13]) by audl751.usa.alcatel.com (ALCANET) with ESMTP id kA6ITVCQ031470; Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:29:36 -0600 Received: from [128.251.10.66] ([172.22.216.4]) by usdalsbhs02.ad3.ad.alcatel.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:29:33 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) To: wgchairs@ietf.org Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2--153035319 From: Andrew Lange Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 10:29:18 -0800 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Nov 2006 18:29:33.0914 (UTC) FILETIME=[81B31BA0:01C701D1] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 143.209.238.34 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8de5f93cb2b4e3bee75302e9eacc33db X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 09:34:24 -0500 Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, secdir@mit.edu, dna-dir@ietf.org Subject: Please Nominate Candidates and Provide Feedback! X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org --Apple-Mail-2--153035319 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Greetings! NomCom06 would like to solicit your nominations for the IESG, IAB and IAOC. We would also like your input on incumbents, positve and negative. If your preference is to keep the incumbent on because they are doing a great job, tell us that, but also let us know about other people who might do a great job. NomCom is trying to collect the best possible set of leaders for IETF. Often people are nominated for multiple positions. Your input on candidate X for job Y, will also help us if candidate X is nominated for job Z. Please submit nominations using the form at: http://www1.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/06/nominate If for any reason the tools cannot capture your input, please email the input to us at nomcom06@ietf.org. The nomination period will at end noon Pacific Time November 16, 2006. Thank you! Andrew --Apple-Mail-2--153035319 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Greetings!

NomCom06 would like to = solicit your nominations for the IESG, IAB
and IAOC.=A0 We would also = like your input on incumbents, positve
and = negative.

If your preference is to = keep the incumbent on because they are=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =
doing = a great job, tell us that, but also let us know about other =
people= who might do a great job.=A0 NomCom is trying to collect the = best
possible set of leaders for IETF. Often people are = nominated for
multiple positions.=A0 Your input on candidate X for = job Y, will also
help us if candidate X is nominated for job = Z.

Please submit nominations = using the form at:


If for any reason the tools = cannot capture your input, please email the
input to us at nomcom06@ietf.org.
=
The nomination period will = at end noon Pacific Time November 16, 2006.

Thank = you!

Andrew=A0 =A0=A0 =A0=A0 =A0=A0= =A0=A0 =A0=A0 =A0=A0 =A0=A0 =A0=A0 =A0=A0 =A0=A0 =A0=A0 =A0=A0 =A0=A0 = =A0=A0 =A0=A0 =A0=A0 =A0=A0 =A0=A0 =A0=A0 =A0=A0 =A0=A0 =A0=A0 =A0=A0 =A0=A0= =A0=A0 =A0
= --Apple-Mail-2--153035319-- From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Fri Nov 17 13:51:27 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gl8nw-0006Mc-9s; Fri, 17 Nov 2006 13:51:12 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gl8nu-0006MF-T3; Fri, 17 Nov 2006 13:51:10 -0500 Received: from colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net ([207.17.137.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gl8nq-0002Br-Go; Fri, 17 Nov 2006 13:51:10 -0500 Received: from magenta.juniper.net (magenta.juniper.net [172.17.28.122]) by colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id kAHIow1Z057366; Fri, 17 Nov 2006 10:50:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rcallon@juniper.net) Received: from rcallon-lt1.juniper.net ([172.23.1.176]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id kAHIovF02655; Fri, 17 Nov 2006 10:50:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rcallon@juniper.net) Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20061117121024.041bb690@zircon.juniper.net> X-Sender: rcallon@zircon.juniper.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 12:13:00 -0500 To: rtg-dir@ietf.org, routing-discussion@ietf.org From: Ross Callon Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034 Cc: Subject: The Routing And Addressing Mailing List X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org FYI. Thanks, to Dave Meyer for setting this up. Ross > From: David Meyer > To: routingworkshop@lists.i1b.org, architecture-discuss@ietf.org > Cc: iab@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org > Subject: [RAM] New list: The Routing And Addressing Mailing List > Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 09:35:55 -0800 > > > Folks, > > We've created a new list, the Routing and Addressing > Mailing list (ram@iab.org), which is reserved for the > IETF community's discussion of the analysis of and > potential solutions to the continued growth in the size > and dynamics of the Internet's default free zone routing > table. > > Lixia and I will be moderating the list. We're hoping for > focused discussions on the topic(s) at hand. > > To subscribe, please see https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram > > Finally, note that while the list is hosted @iab.org, > this is an IETF (i.e., IESG and IAB) sponsored activity. > > We're all looking forward to the discussion. > > Thanks, > > --dmm From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 27 07:03:47 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GofD5-0003dp-3C; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 07:03:43 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GofD4-0003dk-Fe for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 07:03:42 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([63.240.77.83]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GofD3-0007Pu-4t for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 07:03:42 -0500 Received: from frogbits.attlabs.att.com (c-67-188-114-134.hsd1.ca.comcast.net[67.188.114.134]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2006112712034001300au000e>; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:03:40 +0000 Received: from frogbits.attlabs.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by frogbits.attlabs.att.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id kARC01vW052742 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 04:00:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fenner@frogbits.attlabs.att.com) Received: (from fenner@localhost) by frogbits.attlabs.att.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id kARC01vX052741 for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 04:00:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fenner) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 04:00:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200611271200.kARC01vX052741@frogbits.attlabs.att.com> From: fenner@research.att.com (Bill Fenner) To: rtg-dir@ietf.org (Routing Area Directorate) X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f2728948111f2edaaf8980b5b9de55af Subject: IESG agenda for 2006-11-30 telechat. X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org IESG Agenda Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2006-11-30). Updated 2:2:24 EDT, November 27, 2006 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Administrivia 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Bash the Agenda 1.3 Approval of the Minutes of the past telechat 1.4 List of Remaining Action Items from Last Telechat 1.5 Review of Projects 2. Protocol Actions Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable basis on which to build the salient part of the Internet infrastructure? If not, what changes would make it so?" 2.1 WG Submissions 2.1.1 New Item Area Date OPS Mar 8 Managed Objects of Ethernet Passive Optical Networks (EPON) (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 4 draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-epon-mib-06.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Bert Wijnen is the PROTO shepherd Token: Dan Romascanu INT Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) (Draft Standard) - 2 of 4 draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-09.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Brian Haberman < brian@innovationslab.net> is the PROTO shepherd for this document. Token: Jari Arkko SEC DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 4 draft-ietf-dkim-base-06.txt Token: Russ Housley APP Netnews Article Format (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 4 draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-11.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Lisa Dusseault 2.1.2 Returning Item NONE 2.2 Individual Submissions 2.2.1 New Item Area Date APP Five-Document ballot: [Open Web Ballot] - 1 of 1 Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) (Draft Standard) - 1 of 1 draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3730bis-04.txt Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Domain Name Mapping (Draft Standard) draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3731bis-05.txt Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Host Mapping (Draft Standard) draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3732bis-04.txt Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Contact Mapping (Draft Standard) draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3733bis-05.txt Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Transport Over TCP (Draft Standard) draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3734bis-04.txt Token: Ted Hardie 2.2.2 Returning Item NONE 3. Document Actions 3.1 WG Submissions Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it covers? If not, what changes would make it so?" 3.1.1 New Item Area Date INT Two-Document ballot: [Open Web Ballot] - 1 of 4 An Architecture for Provider Provisioned CE-based Virtual Private Networks using IPsec (Informational) - 1 of 4 draft-ietf-l3vpn-ce-based-03.txt Applicability Statement for Provider Provisioned CE-based Virtual Private Networks using IPsec (Informational) draft-declercq-l3vpn-ce-based-as-00.txt Token: Mark Townsley INT Three-Document ballot: [Open Web Ballot] - 2 of 4 Network based IP VPN Architecture Using Virtual Routers (Informational) - 2 of 4 draft-ietf-l3vpn-vpn-vr-03.txt Using BGP as an Auto-Discovery Mechanism for VR-based Layer-3 VPNs (Informational) draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-08.txt Applicability Statement for Virtual Router-based Layer 3 PPVPN Approaches (Informational) draft-ietf-l3vpn-as-vr-02.txt Token: Mark Townsley INT Network Mobility Support Terminology (Informational) - 3 of 4 draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-06.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Proto shepherd is TJ Kniveton Token: Jari Arkko INT Network Mobility Support Goals and Requirements (Informational) - 4 of 4 draft-ietf-nemo-requirements-06.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Proto shepherd is TJ Kniveton NOTE: This draft lists requirements behind RFC 3963 Token: Jari Arkko 3.1.2 Returning Item Area Date Problem Statement for Network-based INT Localized Mobility Management (Informational) - 1 of 2 draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps-05.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Brought back to the telechat agenda to resolve DISCUSSes. Token: Jari Arkko INT Goals for Network-based Localized Mobility Management (NETLMM) (Informational) - 2 of 2 draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req-05.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Brought back to the telechat agenda to resolved DISCUSSes. Token: Jari Arkko 3.2 Individual Submissions Via AD Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it covers? If not, what changes would make it so?" 3.2.1 New Item NONE 3.2.2 Returning Item NONE 3.3 Individual Submissions Via RFC Editor The IESG will use RFC 3932 responses: 1) The IESG has not found any conflict between this document and IETF work; 2) The IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG , but this does not prevent publishing; 3) The IESG thinks that publication is harmful to work in WG and recommends not publishing at this time; 4) The IESG thinks that this document violates the IETF procedures for and should therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG approval; 5) The IESG thinks that this document extends an IETF protocol in a way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG approval. Other matters may be recorded in comments to be passed on to the RFC Editor as community review of the document. 3.3.1 New Item NONE 3.3.2 Returning Item NONE 3.3.3 For Action Area Date NAT and Firewall Traversal Issues of Host Identity GEN Protocol (HIP) Communication (Informational) - 1 of 1 draft-irtf-hiprg-nat-03.txt Token: Mark Townsley 4. Working Group Actions 4.1 WG Creation 4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review NONE 4.1.2 Proposed for Approval NONE 4.2 WG Rechartering 4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF Review NONE 4.2.2 Proposed for Approval Area Date RAI Oct 19 Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep) - 1 of 1 Token: Jon 5. IAB News We Can Use 6. Management Issues 7. Working Group News From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Wed Nov 29 15:14:05 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GpVoj-0002jc-7W; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:14:05 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GpVog-0002im-Ny; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:14:02 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GpVof-0004eE-9g; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:14:02 -0500 Received: from sj-dkim-6.cisco.com ([171.68.10.81]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Nov 2006 12:13:47 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,475,1157353200"; d="scan'208"; a="450038177:sNHT37141518758" Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-6.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kATKDlkc007321; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 12:13:47 -0800 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id kATKDidE008775; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 12:13:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:13:44 -0500 Received: from [10.86.104.179] ([10.86.104.179]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:13:43 -0500 In-Reply-To: <452C0A97.5010501@cisco.com> References: <452C089D.5090204@cisco.com> <452C0A97.5010501@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: JP Vasseur Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:13:43 -0500 To: Acee Lindem X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Nov 2006 20:13:44.0077 (UTC) FILETIME=[DE968BD0:01C713F2] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3964; t=1164831227; x=1165695227; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim6002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jvasseur@cisco.com; z=From:=20JP=20Vasseur=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Fwd=3A=20[mpls]=20WG=20Last=20Call=20on=20draft-ietf -mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt] |Sender:=20; bh=52IPIdryCAUvug2z2zcTWmbAp2unYXDTdGxToQmF0iY=; b=HRnQXXG8rXPfGsQCgREYdYyldVDj/kf7mBLYBDx7tSdq9hGecywYLYEaVNeAicE0xLVAyuh0 e5X9JbNpvpki/ZLErP4W080Lykov7T0UZHKow+ffzxhcc8IPTTmg0/pc; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-6; header.From=jvasseur@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim6002 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2ed806e2f53ff1a061ad4f97e00345ac Cc: George Swallow , rtg-dir@ietf.org, isis-wg@ietf.org, ospf@ietf.org, David Ward , Loa Andersson Subject: Re: [Fwd: [mpls] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt] X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Hi Acee, Thanks for your comments - As soon as you ACK that the changes address your comments I'll post the updated ID. see in line, On Oct 10, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Acee Lindem wrote: > JP, > > One more comment - Please write the document so that it can > apply to OSPFv3 TE as well. The existing draft can be an informative > reference (draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-07.txt) > OK. Text added: OLD: The Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST appear at most once within the Link TLV (Type 2) that is itself carried within the Traffic Engineering LSA specified in [RFC3630]. If a second instance of the Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is present, the receiving system MUST only process the first instance of the sub-TLV. NEW: The Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST appear at most once within the Link TLV (Type 2) that is itself carried within the OSPFv2 Traffic Engineering LSA specified in [RFC3630] or the OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE LSA (function code 10) defined in draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic. If a second instance of the Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub- TLV is present, the receiving system MUST only process the first instance of the sub-TLV. see below > Thanks, > Acee > > Acee Lindem wrote: >> I've reviewed the subject document and don't have any comments on it >> from the perspective of the OSPF WG. However, I have the following >> comments as a member of the routing directorate (copying JP): >> >> 1. Why the cryptic sub-TLV name? RFC 3630 doesn't define short >> cryptic names for sub-TLVs so I don't really see why you've >> defined >> NB-0-BW-LSP? Why not just call it the Unconstrained LSP >> Count sub-TLV? >> Or at least come up with a better short name :^), e.g. BW-0- >> LSP-CNT. Yes, no problem. I renamed it ;-) Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV. >> 2. How did you arrive at 19 for the suggested value for the sub- >> TLV type? I checked >> IANA and 18 is the next available. I may be missing a >> document though. As documented, 18 looks the next one available (when I first wrote the ID I vaguely remember having seen another ID using 18 but I'm not quite sure). Let's propose 18 and will see with IANA. >> 3. Do you want to reserve a value (e.g., 0xffffffff) to >> indicate no unconstrained >> LSPs are to traverse a given link. Let's just use the value 0. >> 4. Nit - in section 4, replace "OSPF LSA" with "OSPF LSAs" and >> "ISIS LSP" >> with "ISIS LSPs". Thanks. Cheers. JP. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> David Ward wrote: >>> Do you want our WG to review? Co-Last Call (as we have for other >>> WG that >>> affect our protocol)? Do you have a desired date for end of last >>> call from >>> the IGPs? >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> -DWard >>> >>> >>> On 9/4/06 5:01 AM, "Loa Andersson" wrote: >>> >>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> the MPLS working group want to notify the ospf and is-s >>>> working groups, as well as the routing directorate that >>>> we are currently doing a wg last call on >>>> draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt. >>>> >>>> Loa and George >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> Subject: [mpls] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te- >>>> lsps-02.txt >>>> Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 10:08:10 +0200 >>>> From: Loa Andersson >>>> Organization: Acreo AB >>>> To: mpls@ietf.org >>>> >>>> Working Group, >>>> >>>> this initiates a two week working group last call on >>>> draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt >>>> >>>> The wg last call ends on September 17. >>>> >>>> Please send comments to the working group mailing list and/or >>>> the working group chairs. >>>> >>>> /Loa and George >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Thu Nov 30 11:56:55 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GppDP-0002qf-5K; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:56:51 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GppDN-0002qE-JV; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:56:49 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GppDM-0007Kb-4M; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:56:49 -0500 Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2006 08:56:47 -0800 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kAUGukgo012783; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:56:46 -0500 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id kAUGukYJ005588; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:56:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:56:45 -0500 Received: from [10.82.224.37] ([10.82.224.37]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:56:45 -0500 Message-ID: <456F0D4C.2070209@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:56:44 -0500 From: Acee Lindem User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JP Vasseur References: <452C089D.5090204@cisco.com> <452C0A97.5010501@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Nov 2006 16:56:45.0364 (UTC) FILETIME=[847FCF40:01C714A0] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4384; t=1164905806; x=1165769806; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=acee@cisco.com; z=From:=20Acee=20Lindem=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Fwd=3A=20[mpls]=20WG=20Last=20Call=20on=20draft-ietf -mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt] |Sender:=20 |To:=20JP=20Vasseur=20; bh=I+70JaJfV5d2Tn3iDx8cCBGNTPlUijVXXjkXF9iT4iU=; b=QfucUAOzPCqU11THGaTNs/G3PPEBED/oQdFpTYFgoBW48kqul0kZjNkS3Wwr7jZJbIZqAm2V mwlIRQ5KHa2YKMrvIY/p4m2uGh+T3mzwzJdfmEZJl+/OkPF7sTyF8N6W; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=acee@cisco.com; dkim=pass (s ig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0770535483960d190d4a0d020e7060bd Cc: George Swallow , rtg-dir@ietf.org, isis-wg@ietf.org, ospf@ietf.org, David Ward , Loa Andersson Subject: Re: [Fwd: [mpls] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt] X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Hi JP, Looks good. See one question below. JP Vasseur wrote: > Hi Acee, > > Thanks for your comments - > > As soon as you ACK that the changes address your comments I'll post > the updated ID. > > see in line, > > On Oct 10, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Acee Lindem wrote: > >> JP, >> >> One more comment - Please write the document so that it can >> apply to OSPFv3 TE as well. The existing draft can be an informative >> reference (draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-07.txt) >> > > OK. Text added: > > OLD: > > The Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST > appear at most once within the Link TLV (Type 2) that is itself > carried within the Traffic Engineering LSA specified in [RFC3630]. If > a second instance of the Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is > present, the receiving system MUST only process the first instance of > the sub-TLV. > > > NEW: > > The Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST > appear at most once within the Link TLV (Type 2) that is itself > carried within the OSPFv2 Traffic Engineering LSA specified in > [RFC3630] > or the OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE LSA (function code 10) defined in > draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic. > If a second instance of the Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is > present, the receiving system MUST only process the first instance of > the sub-TLV. > > see below > >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> Acee Lindem wrote: >>> I've reviewed the subject document and don't have any comments on it >>> from the perspective of the OSPF WG. However, I have the following >>> comments as a member of the routing directorate (copying JP): >>> >>> 1. Why the cryptic sub-TLV name? RFC 3630 doesn't define short >>> cryptic names for sub-TLVs so I don't really see why you've >>> defined >>> NB-0-BW-LSP? Why not just call it the Unconstrained LSP Count >>> sub-TLV? >>> Or at least come up with a better short name :^), e.g. >>> BW-0-LSP-CNT. > > Yes, no problem. I renamed it ;-) > > Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV. > >>> 2. How did you arrive at 19 for the suggested value for the >>> sub-TLV type? I checked >>> IANA and 18 is the next available. I may be missing a document >>> though. > > As documented, 18 looks the next one available (when I first wrote the > ID I vaguely remember having seen another ID using 18 but I'm not > quite sure). Let's propose 18 and will see with IANA. > >>> 3. Do you want to reserve a value (e.g., 0xffffffff) to indicate >>> no unconstrained >>> LSPs are to traverse a given link. > > Let's just use the value 0. Since this is the current number wouldn't there be ambiguity between designating there are currently no BW-0 LSPs traversing this link and no BW-0 LSPs are allowed to traverse this linke? Thanks, Acee > >>> 4. Nit - in section 4, replace "OSPF LSA" with "OSPF LSAs" and >>> "ISIS LSP" >>> with "ISIS LSPs". > > Thanks. > > Cheers. > > JP. > >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Acee >>> David Ward wrote: >>>> Do you want our WG to review? Co-Last Call (as we have for other WG >>>> that >>>> affect our protocol)? Do you have a desired date for end of last >>>> call from >>>> the IGPs? >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> -DWard >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9/4/06 5:01 AM, "Loa Andersson" wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> All, >>>>> >>>>> the MPLS working group want to notify the ospf and is-s >>>>> working groups, as well as the routing directorate that >>>>> we are currently doing a wg last call on >>>>> draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt. >>>>> >>>>> Loa and George >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>> Subject: [mpls] WG Last Call on >>>>> draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt >>>>> Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 10:08:10 +0200 >>>>> From: Loa Andersson >>>>> Organization: Acreo AB >>>>> To: mpls@ietf.org >>>>> >>>>> Working Group, >>>>> >>>>> this initiates a two week working group last call on >>>>> draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt >>>>> >>>>> The wg last call ends on September 17. >>>>> >>>>> Please send comments to the working group mailing list and/or >>>>> the working group chairs. >>>>> >>>>> /Loa and George >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Thu Nov 30 14:30:35 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GprcB-0006Dj-IB; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:30:35 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gprc8-0006DJ-Jj; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:30:32 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gprc7-0001El-08; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:30:32 -0500 Received: from sj-dkim-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.79]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2006 11:30:30 -0800 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-5.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kAUJUT5G022768; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:30:29 -0800 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id kAUJTwOv018677; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:30:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:29:51 -0500 Received: from [10.86.104.179] ([10.86.104.179]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:29:50 -0500 In-Reply-To: <456F0D4C.2070209@cisco.com> References: <452C089D.5090204@cisco.com> <452C0A97.5010501@cisco.com> <456F0D4C.2070209@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <4354A088-B93C-457F-93FD-55B8EB4A861A@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: JP Vasseur Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:29:49 -0500 To: Acee Lindem X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Nov 2006 19:29:51.0057 (UTC) FILETIME=[E7995410:01C714B5] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4888; t=1164915029; x=1165779029; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim5002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jvasseur@cisco.com; z=From:=20JP=20Vasseur=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Fwd=3A=20[mpls]=20WG=20Last=20Call=20on=20draft-ietf -mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt] |Sender:=20; bh=XinVuCa99B5apwocItWwwFeGZ3wQ8tJieHOtpZ7mmsM=; b=vq81QcR1/WFcK1GToIqKpw5G++TJKci5Ili9OW25m/F8ftlSODkFm4yVEEt6k2JQnlnr9eLN foaAKZgqsX8BFAzfbjjxrIleJYdFn9aerS25sisMeDHR1qYPmhPbQVLF; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-5; header.From=jvasseur@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim5002 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2a76bcd37b1c8a21336eb0a1ea6bbf48 Cc: George Swallow , rtg-dir@ietf.org, isis-wg@ietf.org, ospf@ietf.org, David Ward , Loa Andersson Subject: Re: [Fwd: [mpls] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt] X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Hi Acee, On Nov 30, 2006, at 11:56 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: > Hi JP, > Looks good. See one question below. > > JP Vasseur wrote: >> Hi Acee, >> >> Thanks for your comments - >> >> As soon as you ACK that the changes address your comments I'll >> post the updated ID. >> >> see in line, >> >> On Oct 10, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Acee Lindem wrote: >> >>> JP, >>> >>> One more comment - Please write the document so that it can >>> apply to OSPFv3 TE as well. The existing draft can be an informative >>> reference (draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-07.txt) >>> >> >> OK. Text added: >> >> OLD: >> >> The Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST >> appear at most once within the Link TLV (Type 2) that is itself >> carried within the Traffic Engineering LSA specified in >> [RFC3630]. If >> a second instance of the Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub- >> TLV is >> present, the receiving system MUST only process the first >> instance of >> the sub-TLV. >> >> >> NEW: >> >> The Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST >> appear at most once within the Link TLV (Type 2) that is itself >> carried within the OSPFv2 Traffic Engineering LSA specified in >> [RFC3630] >> or the OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE LSA (function code 10) defined in >> draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic. >> If a second instance of the Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub- >> TLV is >> present, the receiving system MUST only process the first >> instance of >> the sub-TLV. >> >> see below >> >>> Thanks, >>> Acee >>> >>> Acee Lindem wrote: >>>> I've reviewed the subject document and don't have any comments >>>> on it >>>> from the perspective of the OSPF WG. However, I have the following >>>> comments as a member of the routing directorate (copying JP): >>>> >>>> 1. Why the cryptic sub-TLV name? RFC 3630 doesn't define short >>>> cryptic names for sub-TLVs so I don't really see why >>>> you've defined >>>> NB-0-BW-LSP? Why not just call it the Unconstrained LSP >>>> Count sub-TLV? >>>> Or at least come up with a better short name :^), e.g. >>>> BW-0-LSP-CNT. >> >> Yes, no problem. I renamed it ;-) >> >> Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV. >> >>>> 2. How did you arrive at 19 for the suggested value for the >>>> sub-TLV type? I checked >>>> IANA and 18 is the next available. I may be missing a >>>> document though. >> >> As documented, 18 looks the next one available (when I first wrote >> the ID I vaguely remember having seen another ID using 18 but I'm >> not quite sure). Let's propose 18 and will see with IANA. >> >>>> 3. Do you want to reserve a value (e.g., 0xffffffff) to >>>> indicate no unconstrained >>>> LSPs are to traverse a given link. >> >> Let's just use the value 0. > Since this is the current number wouldn't there be ambiguity > between designating there > are currently no BW-0 LSPs traversing this link and no BW-0 LSPs > are allowed > to traverse this linke? Other attributes such as affinity should be used to not allows 0-bw TE LSP to traverse a specific link. This TLV is only used to report the number of such TE LSPs traversing the link. Thanks. JP. > > Thanks, > Acee > >> >>>> 4. Nit - in section 4, replace "OSPF LSA" with "OSPF LSAs" and >>>> "ISIS LSP" >>>> with "ISIS LSPs". >> >> Thanks. >> >> Cheers. >> >> JP. >> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Acee >>>> David Ward wrote: >>>>> Do you want our WG to review? Co-Last Call (as we have for >>>>> other WG that >>>>> affect our protocol)? Do you have a desired date for end of >>>>> last call from >>>>> the IGPs? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> -DWard >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 9/4/06 5:01 AM, "Loa Andersson" wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> All, >>>>>> >>>>>> the MPLS working group want to notify the ospf and is-s >>>>>> working groups, as well as the routing directorate that >>>>>> we are currently doing a wg last call on >>>>>> draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt. >>>>>> >>>>>> Loa and George >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>>> Subject: [mpls] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te- >>>>>> lsps-02.txt >>>>>> Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 10:08:10 +0200 >>>>>> From: Loa Andersson >>>>>> Organization: Acreo AB >>>>>> To: mpls@ietf.org >>>>>> >>>>>> Working Group, >>>>>> >>>>>> this initiates a two week working group last call on >>>>>> draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt >>>>>> >>>>>> The wg last call ends on September 17. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please send comments to the working group mailing list and/or >>>>>> the working group chairs. >>>>>> >>>>>> /Loa and George >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Thu Nov 30 14:32:38 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GpreA-00076n-85; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:32:38 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gpre8-00074t-Ue; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:32:36 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gpre7-0001bJ-Bi; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:32:36 -0500 Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2006 11:32:34 -0800 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kAUJWXhN024136; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:32:33 -0500 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id kAUJWXYN016309; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:32:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:32:33 -0500 Received: from [10.82.224.37] ([10.82.224.37]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:32:33 -0500 Message-ID: <456F31D0.3050809@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:32:32 -0500 From: Acee Lindem User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JP Vasseur References: <452C089D.5090204@cisco.com> <452C0A97.5010501@cisco.com> <456F0D4C.2070209@cisco.com> <4354A088-B93C-457F-93FD-55B8EB4A861A@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4354A088-B93C-457F-93FD-55B8EB4A861A@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Nov 2006 19:32:33.0263 (UTC) FILETIME=[4847FFF0:01C714B6] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=5083; t=1164915153; x=1165779153; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=acee@cisco.com; z=From:=20Acee=20Lindem=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Fwd=3A=20[mpls]=20WG=20Last=20Call=20on=20draft-ietf -mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt] |Sender:=20 |To:=20JP=20Vasseur=20; bh=Ck1ZzJRmpGyNAUg/g4HrySDgyo+nOY3C4aL7iYDBsMk=; b=J8hWVLsd0zkk1ztbZSVIXR5hBDAjHl3a1lN9j8drcsSR8Rb9sgYQ+zgx0uhprW3/U2vLLNer LYsrPvmz8zf4FTrNopmiRs+vCPDOdSb9Lcul5qi4ayvuaKxHO/T6Qcl8; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=acee@cisco.com; dkim=pass (s ig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 33cc095b503da4365ce57c727e553cf1 Cc: George Swallow , rtg-dir@ietf.org, isis-wg@ietf.org, ospf@ietf.org, David Ward , Loa Andersson Subject: Re: [Fwd: [mpls] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt] X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org JP - Sounds good. Acee JP Vasseur wrote: > Hi Acee, > > On Nov 30, 2006, at 11:56 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: > >> Hi JP, >> Looks good. See one question below. >> >> JP Vasseur wrote: >>> Hi Acee, >>> >>> Thanks for your comments - >>> >>> As soon as you ACK that the changes address your comments I'll post >>> the updated ID. >>> >>> see in line, >>> >>> On Oct 10, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Acee Lindem wrote: >>> >>>> JP, >>>> >>>> One more comment - Please write the document so that it can >>>> apply to OSPFv3 TE as well. The existing draft can be an informative >>>> reference (draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-07.txt) >>>> >>> >>> OK. Text added: >>> >>> OLD: >>> >>> The Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST >>> appear at most once within the Link TLV (Type 2) that is itself >>> carried within the Traffic Engineering LSA specified in >>> [RFC3630]. If >>> a second instance of the Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is >>> present, the receiving system MUST only process the first >>> instance of >>> the sub-TLV. >>> >>> >>> NEW: >>> >>> The Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST >>> appear at most once within the Link TLV (Type 2) that is itself >>> carried within the OSPFv2 Traffic Engineering LSA specified in >>> [RFC3630] >>> or the OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE LSA (function code 10) defined in >>> draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic. >>> If a second instance of the Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) >>> sub-TLV is >>> present, the receiving system MUST only process the first >>> instance of >>> the sub-TLV. >>> >>> see below >>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Acee >>>> >>>> Acee Lindem wrote: >>>>> I've reviewed the subject document and don't have any comments on it >>>>> from the perspective of the OSPF WG. However, I have the following >>>>> comments as a member of the routing directorate (copying JP): >>>>> >>>>> 1. Why the cryptic sub-TLV name? RFC 3630 doesn't define short >>>>> cryptic names for sub-TLVs so I don't really see why you've >>>>> defined >>>>> NB-0-BW-LSP? Why not just call it the Unconstrained LSP >>>>> Count sub-TLV? >>>>> Or at least come up with a better short name :^), e.g. >>>>> BW-0-LSP-CNT. >>> >>> Yes, no problem. I renamed it ;-) >>> >>> Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV. >>> >>>>> 2. How did you arrive at 19 for the suggested value for the >>>>> sub-TLV type? I checked >>>>> IANA and 18 is the next available. I may be missing a >>>>> document though. >>> >>> As documented, 18 looks the next one available (when I first wrote >>> the ID I vaguely remember having seen another ID using 18 but I'm >>> not quite sure). Let's propose 18 and will see with IANA. >>> >>>>> 3. Do you want to reserve a value (e.g., 0xffffffff) to >>>>> indicate no unconstrained >>>>> LSPs are to traverse a given link. >>> >>> Let's just use the value 0. >> Since this is the current number wouldn't there be ambiguity between >> designating there >> are currently no BW-0 LSPs traversing this link and no BW-0 LSPs are >> allowed >> to traverse this linke? > > Other attributes such as affinity should be used to not allows 0-bw TE > LSP to traverse a specific link. This TLV is only used to report the > number of such TE LSPs traversing the link. > > Thanks. > > JP. > >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >>> >>>>> 4. Nit - in section 4, replace "OSPF LSA" with "OSPF LSAs" and >>>>> "ISIS LSP" >>>>> with "ISIS LSPs". >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Cheers. >>> >>> JP. >>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Acee >>>>> David Ward wrote: >>>>>> Do you want our WG to review? Co-Last Call (as we have for other >>>>>> WG that >>>>>> affect our protocol)? Do you have a desired date for end of last >>>>>> call from >>>>>> the IGPs? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> -DWard >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9/4/06 5:01 AM, "Loa Andersson" wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the MPLS working group want to notify the ospf and is-s >>>>>>> working groups, as well as the routing directorate that >>>>>>> we are currently doing a wg last call on >>>>>>> draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Loa and George >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>>>> Subject: [mpls] WG Last Call on >>>>>>> draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt >>>>>>> Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 10:08:10 +0200 >>>>>>> From: Loa Andersson >>>>>>> Organization: Acreo AB >>>>>>> To: mpls@ietf.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Working Group, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> this initiates a two week working group last call on >>>>>>> draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The wg last call ends on September 17. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please send comments to the working group mailing list and/or >>>>>>> the working group chairs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /Loa and George >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Thu Nov 30 14:34:42 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GprgA-000083-4j; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:34:42 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gprg8-00005M-00; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:34:40 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gprg6-0001ql-Dl; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:34:39 -0500 Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2006 11:34:37 -0800 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kAUJYatM022987; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:34:36 -0500 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id kAUJYaYV017791; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:34:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:34:23 -0500 Received: from [10.86.104.179] ([10.86.104.179]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:34:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: <456F31D0.3050809@cisco.com> References: <452C089D.5090204@cisco.com> <452C0A97.5010501@cisco.com> <456F0D4C.2070209@cisco.com> <4354A088-B93C-457F-93FD-55B8EB4A861A@cisco.com> <456F31D0.3050809@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <6C99B47A-3512-48B5-9BF3-5EF924D7F39E@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: JP Vasseur Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:34:21 -0500 To: Acee Lindem X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Nov 2006 19:34:22.0614 (UTC) FILETIME=[8975A360:01C714B6] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=5449; t=1164915276; x=1165779276; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jvasseur@cisco.com; z=From:=20JP=20Vasseur=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Fwd=3A=20[mpls]=20WG=20Last=20Call=20on=20draft-ietf -mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt] |Sender:=20 |To:=20Acee=20Lindem=20; bh=LpEJ/OeHhHrpUdSUU7/QMglN5zxCu8nPzZSRVo0ZI+w=; b=HpcxUTDTUMS3NiMEGSjBtoGtdQ0ptPFv00rvdTD0im5CMb6LXTpY/gDHPClrEZSSZ+Zv39mQ 1JKDDWfiJ4vDrq4qusK2OVU/qcApW+Bh2cbydMVbLURw0uU3kxFzjCv9; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=jvasseur@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f2984bf50fb52a9e56055f779793d783 Cc: George Swallow , rtg-dir@ietf.org, isis-wg@ietf.org, ospf@ietf.org, David Ward , Loa Andersson Subject: Re: [Fwd: [mpls] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt] X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org OK thanks so I'll now post the revised version. Cheers. JP. On Nov 30, 2006, at 2:32 PM, Acee Lindem wrote: > JP - Sounds good. > Acee > JP Vasseur wrote: >> Hi Acee, >> >> On Nov 30, 2006, at 11:56 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: >> >>> Hi JP, >>> Looks good. See one question below. >>> >>> JP Vasseur wrote: >>>> Hi Acee, >>>> >>>> Thanks for your comments - >>>> >>>> As soon as you ACK that the changes address your comments I'll >>>> post the updated ID. >>>> >>>> see in line, >>>> >>>> On Oct 10, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Acee Lindem wrote: >>>> >>>>> JP, >>>>> >>>>> One more comment - Please write the document so that it can >>>>> apply to OSPFv3 TE as well. The existing draft can be an >>>>> informative >>>>> reference (draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-07.txt) >>>>> >>>> >>>> OK. Text added: >>>> >>>> OLD: >>>> >>>> The Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST >>>> appear at most once within the Link TLV (Type 2) that is itself >>>> carried within the Traffic Engineering LSA specified in >>>> [RFC3630]. If >>>> a second instance of the Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub- >>>> TLV is >>>> present, the receiving system MUST only process the first >>>> instance of >>>> the sub-TLV. >>>> >>>> >>>> NEW: >>>> >>>> The Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST >>>> appear at most once within the Link TLV (Type 2) that is itself >>>> carried within the OSPFv2 Traffic Engineering LSA specified >>>> in [RFC3630] >>>> or the OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE LSA (function code 10) defined in >>>> draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic. >>>> If a second instance of the Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) >>>> sub-TLV is >>>> present, the receiving system MUST only process the first >>>> instance of >>>> the sub-TLV. >>>> >>>> see below >>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Acee >>>>> >>>>> Acee Lindem wrote: >>>>>> I've reviewed the subject document and don't have any comments >>>>>> on it >>>>>> from the perspective of the OSPF WG. However, I have the >>>>>> following >>>>>> comments as a member of the routing directorate (copying JP): >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Why the cryptic sub-TLV name? RFC 3630 doesn't define short >>>>>> cryptic names for sub-TLVs so I don't really see why >>>>>> you've defined >>>>>> NB-0-BW-LSP? Why not just call it the Unconstrained LSP >>>>>> Count sub-TLV? >>>>>> Or at least come up with a better short name :^), e.g. >>>>>> BW-0-LSP-CNT. >>>> >>>> Yes, no problem. I renamed it ;-) >>>> >>>> Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV. >>>> >>>>>> 2. How did you arrive at 19 for the suggested value for the >>>>>> sub-TLV type? I checked >>>>>> IANA and 18 is the next available. I may be missing a >>>>>> document though. >>>> >>>> As documented, 18 looks the next one available (when I first >>>> wrote the ID I vaguely remember having seen another ID using 18 >>>> but I'm not quite sure). Let's propose 18 and will see with IANA. >>>> >>>>>> 3. Do you want to reserve a value (e.g., 0xffffffff) to >>>>>> indicate no unconstrained >>>>>> LSPs are to traverse a given link. >>>> >>>> Let's just use the value 0. >>> Since this is the current number wouldn't there be ambiguity >>> between designating there >>> are currently no BW-0 LSPs traversing this link and no BW-0 LSPs >>> are allowed >>> to traverse this linke? >> >> Other attributes such as affinity should be used to not allows 0- >> bw TE LSP to traverse a specific link. This TLV is only used to >> report the number of such TE LSPs traversing the link. >> >> Thanks. >> >> JP. >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Acee >>> >>>> >>>>>> 4. Nit - in section 4, replace "OSPF LSA" with "OSPF LSAs" >>>>>> and "ISIS LSP" >>>>>> with "ISIS LSPs". >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Cheers. >>>> >>>> JP. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Acee >>>>>> David Ward wrote: >>>>>>> Do you want our WG to review? Co-Last Call (as we have for >>>>>>> other WG that >>>>>>> affect our protocol)? Do you have a desired date for end of >>>>>>> last call from >>>>>>> the IGPs? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -DWard >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/4/06 5:01 AM, "Loa Andersson" wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the MPLS working group want to notify the ospf and is-s >>>>>>>> working groups, as well as the routing directorate that >>>>>>>> we are currently doing a wg last call on >>>>>>>> draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Loa and George >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>>>>> Subject: [mpls] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw- >>>>>>>> te-lsps-02.txt >>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 10:08:10 +0200 >>>>>>>> From: Loa Andersson >>>>>>>> Organization: Acreo AB >>>>>>>> To: mpls@ietf.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Working Group, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> this initiates a two week working group last call on >>>>>>>> draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The wg last call ends on September 17. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please send comments to the working group mailing list and/or >>>>>>>> the working group chairs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /Loa and George >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Thu Nov 30 20:53:30 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gpxaj-0001za-V2; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:53:29 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gpxaj-0001wm-5o; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:53:29 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gpxah-0007nm-Sa; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:53:29 -0500 Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2006 17:53:27 -0800 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kB11rQRw030038; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:53:26 -0500 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id kB11rQDM020910; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:53:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:53:25 -0500 Received: from [10.86.104.179] ([10.86.104.179]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:53:25 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200612010148.kB11m8o2061362@workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com> References: <200612010148.kB11m8o2061362@workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <133D69D4-43D7-46D0-88E5-80FD8CB25CCF@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: JP Vasseur Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:53:21 -0500 To: curtis@occnc.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Dec 2006 01:53:25.0540 (UTC) FILETIME=[7D4CBE40:01C714EB] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1224; t=1164938006; x=1165802006; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jvasseur@cisco.com; z=From:=20JP=20Vasseur=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[OSPF]=20Re=3A=20[Fwd=3A=20[mpls]=20WG=20Last=20Call= 20on=20draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt]=20 |Sender:=20 |To:=20curtis@occnc.com; bh=BPd12xBa+zoogHIUHSGXIoNHXmlxfeVqo2nFkl4ftu4=; b=eF4MHklYLO/qAFxc2g6ArfpIJNA1nRibHI6GRLjR9VdSSbqkgCQZ/W1vcEpiwyjhIeOldCvx ypI7CpmHKdQH8uMGnOMaRYFtVuyF9Vbk9AvmhCVadFfuYhRoLRaPbs/W; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=jvasseur@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f Cc: George Swallow , rtg-dir@ietf.org, isis-wg@ietf.org, ospf@ietf.org, David Ward , Loa Andersson , Acee Lindem Subject: Re: [OSPF] Re: [Fwd: [mpls] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt] X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Hi Curtis, On Nov 30, 2006, at 8:48 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > In message <4354A088-B93C-457F-93FD-55B8EB4A861A@cisco.com> > JP Vasseur writes: >> >> Other attributes such as affinity should be used to not allows 0-bw >> TE LSP to traverse a specific link. This TLV is only used to report >> the number of such TE LSPs traversing the link. >> >> Thanks. >> >> JP. > > > The provider already has the necessary tools that can be used to > accomplish this. If a general purpose tool (attributes and > affinities) is available which accomplishes something a special > purpose tool to accomplish the same thing is not needed. > > Such a tool would only be useful if the administration of the MPLS > midpoint (where the attribute is set) had no control over the > administration of the MPLS ingress or a border that is doing route > computation (where the affinity is set). I don't see any anticipated > real world deployment that would benefit from this. If you do, then > please explain the deployment scenario. > not sure to see your point here ... I was mentioning that the aim of this TLV was not to avoid some links. Looks like you're saying the same thing. JP. > Curtis