Benoit Claise | 4 Feb 16:16 2016
Picon

Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-08: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fred Baker made some comments on this draft, part of his
draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture OPS DIR.
Stephen Farrell | 4 Feb 12:43 2016
Picon
Picon

Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-09: (with COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- abstract: "IP/LDP" is a bit ambiguous - it could be read as
"IP over LDP," "IP and LDP" or "IP or LDP" not all of which
make sense I guess:-) Be better if the abstract said "IP and
LDP" I think.

- section 3: the definitions are very dense - would re-ordering
them help maybe? Not sure myself, but maybe think about
it.

- Section 8: with so many parameters, why choose an 8-bit
profile ID? That seems to be a bit short-sighted maybe? 

- 12.2: The sequence presented here has the look of something
(Continue reading)

Benoit Claise | 4 Feb 11:36 2016
Picon

Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-09: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

We're lucky to have two OPS DIR reviews for this document.

>From Fred Baker:

In my view, although I have concerns as I am about to state, I consider
the draft to be ready for IESG review and potential publication as an RFC
at Proposed Standard. I have no specific issues I would like to see
addressed, nor do I believe the technology or draft to be fundamentally
flawed.

Speaking in general terms, this draft describes a solution for the
problem posed in RFC 5714, which is to say a solution for fast reroute in
a network whose routing is implemented using IS-IS and LDP. It is not the
(Continue reading)

Brian Haberman | 3 Feb 16:04 2016
Picon

Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-09: (with COMMENT)

Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The IANA Considerations section creates a new registry for the MRT
Profiles. It allocates "Values 221-255 are for vendor private use." Are
there limitations/guidance on how vendors use this range? Should Section
8,14 or 17 say something about dealing with these ranges in operational
networks?
internet-drafts | 2 Feb 21:40 2016
Picon

I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-01.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Routing Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : A YANG Data Model for Routing Information Protocol (RIP)
        Authors         : Xufeng Liu
                          Prateek Sarda
                          Vikram Choudhary
	Filename        : draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-01.txt
	Pages           : 39
	Date            : 2016-02-02

Abstract:
   This document describes a data model for the Routing Information
   Protocol (RIP). Both RIP version 2 and RIPng are covered.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-01

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
(Continue reading)

Picon

rtgwg - Update to a Meeting Session Request for IETF 95


An update to a meeting session request has just been submitted by Chris Bowers, a Chair of the rtgwg working group.

---------------------------------------------------------
Working Group Name: Routing Area Working Group
Area Name: Routing Area
Session Requester: Chris Bowers

Number of Sessions: 2
Length of Session(s):  2 Hours, 2.5 Hours
Number of Attendees: 120
Conflicts to Avoid: 
 First Priority: isis mpls ospf pce idr spring lime
 Second Priority: bess l3sm bier teas ccamp i2rs
 Third Priority: bfd detnet nvo3 pim netmod

Special Requests:
  At least one of the RTGWG sessions should not conflict with LIME.
---------------------------------------------------------
bruno.decraene | 29 Jan 16:05 2016

RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-09

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to
review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and
sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For
more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ‚Äčhttp://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir


Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could
consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them
through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-09.txt
Reviewer: Bruno Decraene
Review Date: 2016-01-29
IETF LC End Date: 2016-01-29
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:
    I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication.

Comments:
   Document is clear and very well written. Thank you. Very much appreciated given the size of the document and
the subject.

Majors Issues:
   None

Minor Issues:

----
(Continue reading)

Chris Bowers | 26 Jan 19:36 2016
Picon

guidelines for drafts in RTGWG on wiki

Dear RTGWG,
 
Jeff and I put together the following guidelines for working on topics in the RTGWG charter.  This might be useful for new participants.  Others mays still find it useful because it documents some aspects that are not common to all working groups, such as requiring responses from authors regarding relevant IPR as part of the WG adoption poll.
 
The guidelines can be found directly at this link:
 
Or at a link off of the main wiki page:
 
There is also existing info about submitting proposals for New Work in the Routing Area as a whole. 
 
The link above also has info about how RTGWG participants can use the Wiki to support work in RTGWG.
 
Thanks,
Chris and Jeff
 
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
Uma Chunduri | 20 Jan 16:36 2016
Picon

FW: New Version Notification for draft-psarkar-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-03.txt

Dear RtgWG,

This update gets the content from
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chunduri-rtgwg-lfa-extended-procedures-03 to make an
unified draft for MHP handling and other procedures related LFA/RFC 5286.

Your comments, suggestions are most welcome.

--
Uma C.
(one behalf of all co-authors)

-----Original Message-----
From: internet-drafts <at> ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts <at> ietf.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 12:07 AM
To: Shraddha Hegde; Jeff Tantsura; Pushpasis Sarkar; Hannes Gredler; Chris Bowers; Bruno Decraene; Uma Chunduri
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-psarkar-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-03.txt

A new version of I-D, draft-psarkar-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-03.txt
has been successfully submitted by Uma Chunduri and posted to the IETF repository.

Name:		draft-psarkar-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa
Revision:	03
Title:		LFA selection for Multi-Homed Prefixes
Document date:	2016-01-19
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		17
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-psarkar-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-03.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-psarkar-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-psarkar-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-03
Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-psarkar-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-03

Abstract:
   This document shares experience gained from implementing algorithms
   to determine Loop-Free Alternates for multi-homed prefixes.  In
   particular, this document provides explicit inequalities that can be
   used to evaluate neighbors as a potential alternates for multi-homed
   prefixes.  It also provides detailed criteria for evaluating
   potential alternates for external prefixes advertised by OSPF ASBRs.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and
diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat
The IESG | 14 Jan 23:42 2016
Picon

Last Call: <draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-08.txt> (An Algorithm for Computing Maximally Redundant Trees for IP/LDP Fast-Reroute) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Routing Area Working Group WG
(rtgwg) to consider the following document:
- 'An Algorithm for Computing Maximally Redundant Trees for IP/LDP Fast-
   Reroute'
  <draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-08.txt> as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf <at> ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-01-29. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg <at> ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

   A solution for IP and LDP Fast-Reroute using Maximally Redundant
   Trees is presented in draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture.  This
   document defines the associated MRT Lowpoint algorithm that is used
   in the Default MRT profile to compute both the necessary Maximally
   Redundant Trees with their associated next-hops and the alternates to
   select for MRT-FRR.

The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm/ballot/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
The IESG | 14 Jan 23:16 2016
Picon

Last Call: <draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-09.txt> (An Architecture for IP/LDP Fast-Reroute Using Maximally Redundant Trees) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Routing Area Working Group WG
(rtgwg) to consider the following document:
- 'An Architecture for IP/LDP Fast-Reroute Using Maximally Redundant
   Trees'
  <draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-09.txt> as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf <at> ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-01-29. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg <at> ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

   This document defines the architecture for IP/LDP Fast-Reroute using
   Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT-FRR).  MRT-FRR is a technology that
   gives link-protection and node-protection with 100% coverage in any
   network topology that is still connected after the failure.

The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture/ballot/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

   https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1801/
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1594/
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1733/

Gmane