* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Lsvr Status Pages

Link State Vector Routing (Active WG)
Rtg Area: Alvaro Retana, Deborah Brungard, Martin Vigoureux | 2018-Feb-23 —  

IETF-106 lsvr minutes

Session 2019-11-19 1330-1500: Canning - Audio stream - lsvr chatroom


minutes-106-lsvr-00 minutes

          a. Welcome (10min)
          Update on WG status provided by WG co-chair Gunter.
          b. Update of Shortest Path Routing Extensions for BGP Protocol (15min)
             Presented by Keyur Patel
          Keyur: based on feedback received, added capability to mark nodes not
          capable of acting as a transit node.
          Alvaro: YANG model exists ?
          Keyur: working on it, not ready yet.  Also working on implementation
          and protocol experience drafts
          Alvaro: What is the protocol implementation draft ?
          Keyur: specific information such as inter-op.
          Acee: wanted to keep it simple, not put typical IGP bells and whistles
          in it.  Open to feedback on other functionality that is required.
          Protocol experience draft: it's a requirement in order to publish a new
          protocol spec.
          c. Update Layer 3 Discovery and Liveness (10 min)
             by Randy Bush
          Randy: 4th version and has not changed much.  Primary goal is topology
          discovery for L3.  Thinking of moving to WGLC ?
          Acee: Suggested that is should go to WGLC to prevent it getting bigger.
          Randy: it has not changed *that* much
          Tony P: Have you considered DCCP ?
          Randy: does not make sense since you don't know the IP addresses yet.
          d. Update Layer 3 Discovery and Liveness Signing (10 min)
             Presented by Randy Bush
          Randy: requesting WG adoption
          e. Update L3DL Upper Layer Protocol Configuration (10 min)
              Presented by Randy Bush
          Randy: requesting WG adoption
          f. Update LSVR IETF Organizationally Specific TLVs for IEEE Std 802.1AB
          (LLDP) (20min)
             Presented by Paul Congdon
          Sue Hares: individual draft in idr on TLV usage for LLDP
          Randy: how often will msgs be exchanged ?
          Paul: will be covered in the next update (LLDPv2)
          g. Update LSVR IEEE P802.1ABdh (==LLDPv2) (15min)
             (Informational IEEE Liaison work Update)
             Presented by Paul Congdon
          Acee: this work is happening independently of lsvr ?
          Paul: yes, also used for other work such as 802.1Qcj
          Keyur: feels that both this and the L3DL work should proceed in parallel
          Paul: not proposing this as an exclusive method
          Alvaro: confirming that both Keyur and Randy said that 802.1ABdh and
          L3DL are two ways of achieving the same thing.  Does 802.1ABdh satify
          requirements that we are addressing with L3DL ?
          Keyur: these are two different transports and semantics using the
          same TLVs.  Believes that the choice should be open.
          Randy: they are *not* the same TLVs but semantics need to be the same,
          which is not clear at this point.
          Alvaro: can we define the TLVs once and use them in both protocols ?
          Paul: packing of TLVs may be different. Possible to define identical
          TLVs ....
          Randy: LLDPv2 has a real-estate problem in terms of TLV size... L3DL
          does not.
          h. Wrap-up

Generated from PyHt script /wg/lsvr/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -