headers
Mukesh.Gupta | 1 Oct 2003 03:42
Picon

Agenda Items..

Folks,

We will be working on the agenda for the VRRP WG meeting
in IETF 58th, Minneapolis.

Please let me or Radia know if you have something for 
the agenda.

regards
Mukesh

_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
vrrp <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mukesh.Gupta | 1 Oct 2003 03:44
Picon

VRRP WG Meeting in IETF58th

The VRRP WG meeting is scheduled on Monday, Nov 10th from 900-1130
according to the draft agenda.

If anyone would like to change it, please let the chairs know.

The draft agenda can be seen at http://ietf.org/meetings/agenda_58.html

regards
Mukesh

_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
vrrp <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Radia Perlman - Boston Center for Networking | 1 Oct 2003 04:07
Picon

Re: Agenda Items..

>>Please let me or Radia know if you have something for 
>>the agenda.

Actually, let me amend that to "me *and* Radia", as in,
send it to both of us by sending to

Mukesh.Gupta <at> nokia.com,radia.perlman <at> sun.com

This being the redundancy group and all...but actually,
I'm going away and might be away from email for a week
or so starting in a few days, so I'd worry about email
to me getting lost. Also, please keep the subject line
as [VRRP] Agenda Items so Mukesh and I will be able to pick them
out from the other email offering us various medical marvels...

Thanks,

Radia

_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
vrrp <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mukesh.Gupta | 1 Oct 2003 18:35
Picon

FW: [iesg-secretary #14033] VRRPv2 Implementation Report.

FYI..

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Amy Katherine [mailto:amyk <at> foretec.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 7:19 AM
To: Gupta Mukesh (IPRG/MtView)
Subject: Re: [iesg-secretary #14033] VRRPv2 Implementation Report.

Your request #14033 was updated by amyk:

Dear Mukesh,

The implementation report you sent for RFC 2338 has been posted
to the IETF page for Protocol Implementation Reports
(http://www.ietf.org/IESG/implementation.html).

Thank you,

The IETF Secretariat

_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
vrrp <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
The IESG | 10 Oct 2003 20:51
Picon
Favicon

Last Call: 'Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol' to Draft Standard

The IESG has received a request from the Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol WG 
to consider the following document:

- 'Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol '
   <draft-ietf-vrrp-spec-v2-09.txt> as a Draft Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
iesg <at> ietf.org or ietf <at> ietf.org mailing lists by 2003-10-24.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vrrp-spec-v2-09.txt

_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
vrrp <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
itojun | 15 Oct 2003 03:43

draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-05.txt lacks IPR clause

	draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-05.txt does not have IPR clause on it,
	even though cisco claims to have patent related to it.
	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec.txt

itojun

_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
vrrp <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bob Hinden | 15 Oct 2003 18:52
Picon

Re: draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-05.txt lacks IPR clause

Itojun,

At 06:43 PM 10/14/2003, itojun <at> iijlab.net wrote:
>         draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-05.txt does not have IPR clause on it,
>         even though cisco claims to have patent related to it.
>         http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec.txt

I wasn't aware of this claim on VRRP for IPv6 when the current draft was 
submitted.  I will add an IPR clause in the next version.

Thanks,
Bob

_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
vrrp <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Kalyan.Tata | 18 Oct 2003 01:43
Picon

Referring VRRP by version

Hi,
	We are submitting a draft for managed objects (MIB) 
	that can be used by both VRRPv2 and VRRPv3 protocols.

	We are using the word "VRRPv2" and "VRRP for IPv4" interchangeably
	in the draft. Similarly both "VRRPv3" and "VRRP for IPv6" are 
	being used in the draft.

	I want to know what is the correct way to identify these protocols?
	
	I feel that referring as "VRRP for IPv4" and "VRRP for IPv6" would 
	be more explanatory and the MIB can be used in unlikely case of 
	more than one VRRP versions for IPv4 and IPv6. On the other hand the 
	MIB may have to be revised any way in the above scenario.

	VRRPv2 and VRRPv3 may be the best way to refer too.

	Please let me know your thoughts on this.

thanks
kalyan

_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
vrrp <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Mark & Jeanne Zelios | 18 Oct 2003 17:19
Favicon

Re: Referring VRRP by version

VRRPv4   and VRRPv6 perhaps?
... unless all version numbers need to be accounted for.
Just a thought.
Mark
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Kalyan.Tata <at> nokia.com>
To: <vrrp <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 7:43 PM
Subject: [VRRP] Referring VRRP by version

Hi,
We are submitting a draft for managed objects (MIB) 
that can be used by both VRRPv2 and VRRPv3 protocols.

We are using the word "VRRPv2" and "VRRP for IPv4" interchangeably
in the draft. Similarly both "VRRPv3" and "VRRP for IPv6" are 
being used in the draft.

I want to know what is the correct way to identify these protocols?

I feel that referring as "VRRP for IPv4" and "VRRP for IPv6" would 
be more explanatory and the MIB can be used in unlikely case of 
more than one VRRP versions for IPv4 and IPv6. On the other hand the 
MIB may have to be revised any way in the above scenario.

VRRPv2 and VRRPv3 may be the best way to refer too.

Please let me know your thoughts on this.

thanks
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mukesh.Gupta | 18 Oct 2003 19:34
Picon

RE: Referring VRRP by version

Kalyan,

Both the names have their own advantages but I think, "VRRP for IPv4"
and "VRRP for IPv6" will be better because they could accomodate minor
future upgrades to the VRRP versions.

Regards
Mukesh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Kalyan.Tata <at> nokia.com [mailto:Kalyan.Tata <at> nokia.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 4:44 PM
> To: vrrp <at> ietf.org
> Subject: [VRRP] Referring VRRP by version
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 	We are submitting a draft for managed objects (MIB) 
> 	that can be used by both VRRPv2 and VRRPv3 protocols.
> 
> 	We are using the word "VRRPv2" and "VRRP for IPv4" 
> interchangeably
> 	in the draft. Similarly both "VRRPv3" and "VRRP for IPv6" are 
> 	being used in the draft.
> 
> 	I want to know what is the correct way to identify 
> these protocols?
> 	
> 	I feel that referring as "VRRP for IPv4" and "VRRP for 
> IPv6" would
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane