OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family Traffic Engineering Tunnels
draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-07
Yes
(Martin Vigoureux)
No Objection
(Alissa Cooper)
(Barry Leiba)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Ignas Bagdonas)
(Suresh Krishnan)
Recuse
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Roman Danyliw
(was Discuss)
No Objection
Comment
(2019-08-27)
Sent for earlier
Thank you for addressing my Discuss item.
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Comment
(2019-08-07 for -06)
Not sent
"NoObj" in the "I read the protocol action, and I trust the sponsoring AD so have no problem and / or this is outside my area of expertise or have no cycles" sense of the term. I ran out of cycles, and so am relying on the OpsDir review; thanks Tim.
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment
(2019-08-05 for -06)
Sent
Alvara, Anton, Michael, Thank you for the work done for this document. Just curious about section 3: OSPFv2 routers send their IPv6 address(es) and OSPFv3 routers send their IPv4 address(es). But, what happens when OSPFv3 routers are multi-topology ? Should they also send their IPv6 address(es)? Of course, in this case, the issue fixed by your memo does not exist ;-) Probably worth mentioning anyway that OSPFv3 multi-topology does not need this feature. Regards, -éric
Martin Vigoureux Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -06)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Not sent
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Not sent
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2019-08-07 for -06)
Sent
Section 4 Do the two steps listed have to happen in a particular order in order to avoid breakage?
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Not sent
Ignas Bagdonas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Not sent
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2019-07-30 for -06)
Sent
Sec 1: "This document updates [RFC5786] so that a router can also announce one or more local X-AF addresses using the corresponding Local Address sub-TLV. Routers using the Node Attribute TLV [RFC5786] can include non-TE enabled interface addresses in their OSPF TE advertisements, and also use the same sub-TLVs to carry X-AF information, facilitating the mapping described above." I wonder if this text should use normative language (s/can/MAY/) as this is the part that actually updates RFC5786, however, I didn't check the exact wording in RFC5786...
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Not sent
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
Recuse
Recuse
(2019-08-05 for -06)
Not sent
I am a co-author.