From d3e3e3@gmail.com Sun Jul 1 10:05:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0003311E808C for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 10:05:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.512 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.087, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PdtnEEGyx1xO for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 10:05:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EE3C11E8080 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 10:05:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so7941562obb.31 for ; Sun, 01 Jul 2012 10:05:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pgFNQHofKke5U0+0EzLwU8S3Hcyh0JKG+E5XGn90jKg=; b=0CaQwTtuZi3r1aXKV+ihoJDA3StkCVUazrRH9UNdd8YhXs50JlqTi75CV7Q/HTi57n Xk+OfUSN/k2jlL3XnsfvvMXSMXeg+VyZk3CF4lFbnmoQWFTF7SpDvbKkoLLTGRc/pB6X vHPwdxJPoVt8z1MJRp9MwMy1hsmN7n/0zSFnPc0NNtDi0MqHjWfpfGn/+29jzLx4bLzo 2iZoJcSXLJsVVevcmY9Vy8jcs7qHHaFvyhqelrpKaj3+8TfoCx0dUgc//5/IK3TSBoHF bFMBpJRyBEczZrCskq1nsOiMIm/Gis6lAJ3rfAF6Rj78EFnD1VOUD6RcGTUSd7q/EqSq kaAQ== Received: by 10.50.100.129 with SMTP id ey1mr5403216igb.35.1341162343291; Sun, 01 Jul 2012 10:05:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.16.227 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 10:05:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FEB2BDE.4090502@gmail.com> References: <4FEB2BDE.4090502@gmail.com> From: Donald Eastlake Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 13:05:23 -0400 Message-ID: To: Mike Shand Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-trill-clear-correct.all@tools.ietf.org, rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-trill-clear-correct-04.txt X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 17:05:42 -0000 Hi Mike, Thanks for your review and comments, see below: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Mike Shand wrote: > 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 > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html > > 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-trill-clear-correct-04.txt > Reviewer: Mike Shand > Review Date: 27 June 2012 > IETF LC End Date: ??? > Intended Status: Proposed Standard > > Summary: > > I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be > resolved before publication. > > Comments: > > Given that this is essentially a set of corrections to earlier RFCs, > this draft is well structured and the changes, and reasons for them, > are clearly described. Thanks. > I have listed below as Major, my concerns about the description of > forwarding while in overload state. However, these concerns are most > likely the result of me misunderstanding the description, in which > case, some simple clarification is all that is required to resolve > them. > > Major Issues: > > Section 2.1 states "Frames are not least cost routed through an > overloaded TRILL Switch if any other path is available..." > > However, ISO/IEC precludes the routing of frames through an > overloaded router, even when no other path is available. > (see clause 7.2.8.1) [ note all references to ISO/IEC 10589 are to > the second edition ] > > Is the intention to change this behaviour for TRILL? No. The general statement you quote from 2.1 of the draft above is incorrect but the specific provisions later in the draft, I believe, correspond to RBridges not forwarding unicast to overloaded RBridges unless they are the egress. > Section 2.3.1 seems relevant here, but I don't understand the > description. I must be missing something, since it would appear that > a data frame forwarded to RB2 MUST attempt to forward the frame to > ANY non-overloaded neighbor (other than the one it was received > from). However, surely that non overloaded neighbor might then have > RB2 as its next hop, and forward the frame back to RB2, which would > then be required to forward the frame possibly back to the original > RBridge from which it was received. Clearly this is not the desired > operation, so the text needs clarifying to make it clear what is > really supposed to happen. However, if the non-overloaded neighbor will not forward to an overloaded RBridge, so it will not forward back to RB2, there should be no problem. We'll try to clarlify the wording in Section 2 on these points. > Minor Issues: > > Section 4 bullet 4 > > I THINK this is saying that the check must be made on any "new" LSP > even if the RBridge is in overload state, and cannot store the > received "new" LSP. It may be clearer to explicitly say it must do > this even when overloaded. The existing parenthetical remark > doesn't seem adequate. OK, although I'm a little unsure about "new", perhaps for the reason you put it in quotes. It might be the receipt of an LSP that was previously received but not remembered due to overload. Making it explicit that it must do this even when overloaded is reasonable. > Section 5 2nd para > > I don't understand the term "refragment LSPs". > > Is this saying that an RBridge may start with some value of > originatingL1LSPBufferSize, and then be required to change to a > lower value, thus necessitating that it re-generates all its LSPs > which were previously larger than this new value? Well, the originatingLSPL1BufferSize for an RBridge doesn't change but, as specified in RFC 6325, the size LSP that can be sent is the minimum of the originatingLSPL1BufferSizes it sees for the RBridges in the campus but not less than 1470. It's always safe for an RBridge to use 1470 and, as stated in this draft, in a well configured campus all the RBridges will be configured with the same originatingLSPL1BufferSize so no re-sizing would occur. But, if you have a campus capable of and configured to use jumbo LSPs, should an RBridge or RBridges with a smaller originatingLSPL1BufferSize join the campus, it would not be capable of handling those LSPs so link state flooding wouldn't work. (You mght be trying to merge two campuses or something.) The choice is to isolate the new RBridge(s) or to have the rest conform to the new lower minimum originatingLSPL1BufferSize. TRILL chose the second. > Nits: > > Section 2. > There are two instances of "pseudo node". The ISO/IEC 10589 term is > pseudonode. > (note this is correctly used in section 4) OK. > Section 2.2 first line > > s/A RBridge/An RBridge/ Thanks. > Section 2.2 second para > "...and Bridge RB1 can similarly...." > > Can is ambiguous. Is that MAY or MUST? It's a MAY. "... RB1 MAY similarly ignore ..." If RB1 does not ignore, it just means that it creates extra RPF check state that isn't needed. Probably this should be made clearer. How about "When calculating RPF checks for multi-destination frames, an RBridge RB1 MAY, to avoid calculating unnecessary RPF check state, ignore any trees that cannot ..." > Section 10.1 para below bullet 2. > > s/Two different encoding are providing above/Two different encodings are > provided above/=A0 (I assume) OK. > and in the second sentence > > s/These encoding may/ The encodings may/ > > or should the instances of "encoding" be "encoding mechanisms" ? I think encodings should be OK. Thanks, Donald =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com From adrian@olddog.co.uk Fri Jul 13 07:08:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D393C21F8763; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 07:08:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.387 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.387 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.212, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G0No2Yt40mqA; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 07:08:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9367B21F8618; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 07:08:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6DE9CNJ017191; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:09:12 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6DE9B7k017183 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:09:12 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , , Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:09:12 +0100 Message-ID: <014d01cd6101$14d38340$3e7a89c0$@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: Ac1hARBAR/lXuStkTcanBLF3dMxRyw== Content-Language: en-gb Subject: [RTG-DIR] FW: I-D Action: draft-arkko-iesg-crossarea-01.txt X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:08:39 -0000 Folks, I would really appreciate reviews and discussion of this document before it reaches IETF last call. Comment should, I think, be sent to the author and the IETF discussion list. Thanks, Adrian > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > > Title : Experiences from Cross-Area Work at the IETF > Author(s) : Jari Arkko > Filename : draft-arkko-iesg-crossarea-01.txt > > This memo discusses the reasons for IETF work on topics that cross > area boundaries. Such cross-area work presents challenges for the > organization of the IETF as well as on how interested parties can > participate the work. The memo also provides some suggestions on > managing these challenges. > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-arkko-iesg-crossarea-01.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-arkko-iesg-crossarea-01.txt From adrian@olddog.co.uk Wed Jul 18 07:28:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEC5821F8678; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 07:28:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.474 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pX54BFH0qLfw; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 07:28:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1FC121F8645; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 07:28:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6IETPrJ028583; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:29:25 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6IETO1W028552 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:29:24 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , , Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:29:23 +0100 Message-ID: <095701cd64f1$bad99510$308cbf30$@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: Ac1k8bit1QYf2lxnRmm0SlZQ0ma9yg== Content-Language: en-gb Cc: stbryant@cisco.com Subject: [RTG-DIR] Routing ADs Open Office in Vancouver X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 14:28:40 -0000 Hi, Sunday 14.30 to 16.00 in the IESG breakout room. Come and discuss routing issues and concerns with us. Adrian and Stewart From adrian@olddog.co.uk Mon Jul 23 14:16:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62DDC11E809C for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2012 14:16:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_56=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_73=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id afrgCgDX7Wqq for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2012 14:16:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A640B11E809B for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2012 14:16:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6NLG90F020233 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2012 22:16:09 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (natint3.juniper.net [66.129.224.36]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6NLG6A7020222 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2012 22:16:08 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 22:16:06 +0100 Message-ID: <027001cd6918$60ed04d0$22c70e70$@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: Ac1pGFeRiNKX7uL6SFOJ0GAV6betOg== Content-Language: en-gb Subject: [RTG-DIR] Please welcome four new Routing Directorate members X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 21:16:11 -0000 Hi, Please welcome four new victims^H^H^H^H talented, young volunteers to your ranks. Manav Bhatia manav.bhatia at alcatel-lucent.com Lizhong Jin lizhong.jin at zte.com.cn Hannes Gredler hannes at juniper.net Carlos Pignataro cpignata at cisco.com Cheers, Adrian From adrian@olddog.co.uk Wed Jul 25 21:36:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04DBB21F8526; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:36:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vBc6181QvQ5z; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:36:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E5F021F851E; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:36:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6Q4akOV021211; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:36:46 +0100 Received: from 950129200 ([12.204.99.174]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6Q4ahVb021197 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:36:45 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:36:43 +0100 Message-ID: <083a01cd6ae8$433535d0$c99fa170$@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: Ac1q6DscuGtjn//lTYW7u6lVYamECQ== Content-Language: en-gb Subject: [RTG-DIR] Discussion of "Interface to the Routing System" in Vancouver X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 04:36:49 -0000 Hi, We have a slot on the agenda of the Routing Area Open Meeting to discuss a proposal for new work on an "Interface to the Routing System". We want to spend a little time looking at the proposal to see whether it has legs and to gauge the interest. In summary, the idea is to standardise a programmatic interface for full-duplex, streaming state transfer in and out of the Internet's routing system. You can read an I-D on the subject at http://lucidvision.com/draft-ward-irs-framework-00.txt (this will be posted on Monday when the gates re-open) and there will be slides to guide the dicussion. I will also be opening a non-WG mailing list to give a place to discuss this topic. Adrian From adrian@olddog.co.uk Thu Jul 26 17:51:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A9CC11E80CA; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:51:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id czjfG3rj5CS3; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:51:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F96811E8087; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:51:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6R0pGWs024413; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 01:51:16 +0100 Received: from 950129200 ([206.191.100.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6R0pC46024396 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 27 Jul 2012 01:51:15 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , , Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 01:51:11 +0100 Message-ID: <09ef01cd6b91$ed6324a0$c8296de0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac1rkecyRUyK3aEzRPGMocugA0rG0Q== Content-Language: en-gb Subject: [RTG-DIR] FW: New Non-WG Mailing List: irs-discuss -- Interface to The Internet Routing System (IRS) X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 00:51:26 -0000 Pardon the spam, but just letting you know of this new discussion list. Thanks, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce- > bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of IETF Secretariat > Sent: 27 July 2012 01:45 > To: IETF Announcement List > Cc: tnadeau@juniper.net; wardd@cisco.com; akatlas@juniper.net; irs- > discuss@ietf.org > Subject: New Non-WG Mailing List: irs-discuss -- Interface to The = Internet Routing > System (IRS) >=20 > A new IETF non-working group email list has been created. >=20 > List address: irs-discuss@ietf.org > Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/irs-discuss/ > To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss >=20 > Purpose: This list is for the discussion of an interface to the = routing > system (IRS) that allows applications to rapidly and dynamically = install > routing state into routers, and to learn sufficient information from > routers to make timely, data-based decisions about what routing state = to > specify. Such an interface would facilitate control and diagnosis of = the > routing infrastructure, as well as enabling sophisticated applications > to be built on top of today's routed networks. The IRS is conceived as = a > programmatic, streaming interface for transferring state into and out = of > the Internet's routing system, recognizing that the routing system and = a > router's OS provide useful mechanisms that applications could harness = to > accomplish application-level goals. A fundamental component of the IRS > is a clear data model that defines the semantics of the information = that > can be written and read. >=20 > For additional information, please contact the list administrators. From adrian@olddog.co.uk Sat Jul 28 20:42:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAD1921F85DD; Sat, 28 Jul 2012 20:42:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.74 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xH68Fcb+nOVE; Sat, 28 Jul 2012 20:42:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0478021F85DA; Sat, 28 Jul 2012 20:42:11 -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 q6T3gANJ015289; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 04:42:10 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (static-72-28-92-19.gtcust.grouptelecom.net [72.28.92.19]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6T3g7hN015275 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 29 Jul 2012 04:42:09 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , , Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 04:42:07 +0100 Message-ID: <020201cd6d3c$22852970$678f7c50$@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: Ac1tJOFSlXx4nfWQRJWHFvf9XWznxQ== Content-Language: en-gb Subject: [RTG-DIR] Routing Area Directors Open Office X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 03:42:12 -0000 Hi, Sunday 14.30-16.00 Lord Byron room Adrian