Re: [bmwg] 2nd WGLC for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest

Sarah B <sbanks@encrypted.net> Mon, 15 April 2019 19:38 UTC

Return-Path: <sbanks@encrypted.net>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D474212011D for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 12:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tbOpHho2lfqu for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 12:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aws.hosed.org (aws.hosed.org [50.16.104.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B34F12017B for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 12:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aws.hosed.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C215F81F85 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 15:38:24 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at aws.hosed.org
Received: from aws.hosed.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (aws.hosed.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q2ekPjvPr4ZC for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 15:38:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [172.20.10.3] (mobile-166-170-38-51.mycingular.net [166.170.38.51]) by aws.hosed.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4693A81F83 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 15:38:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sarah B <sbanks@encrypted.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DA1C7659-B138-4CBA-B657-318D054E44BB"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 12:38:23 -0700
References: <78868FB3-1995-43EE-ADF9-66F30C5F7CC3@encrypted.net> <4A38FE77-B59C-410D-9EB4-FD5D2D4E2346@encrypted.net> <E643E569-0239-4D06-8B0D-0943E51795A0@encrypted.net>
To: bmwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <E643E569-0239-4D06-8B0D-0943E51795A0@encrypted.net>
Message-Id: <BACC8C2D-2733-4D33-9B87-31D344D2EFD7@encrypted.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/nln7lye93Fvc0qNMYMFrQGYou9Y>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] 2nd WGLC for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bmwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 19:38:28 -0000

Hi,
	(with my participant hat on)
	
	Authors, I have a concern with this draft moving forward, in light of 2 other proposals coming in. It's not that I object to the content of the draft per se, but rather, I think some consolidation could happen.
	First, it appears that you, the authors, have a second, separate draft, covering Multicast. I'm wondering if that can fit in here. Also, a few folks from AT&T submitted what appears to be a complementary (to this one) draft that makes me think that we'd be better served with consolidation here. I'd like to ask both the authors of this draft, and Al/Jim, to discuss and see if unification makes sense.

Thanks
Sarah (with participant hat on!!)

> On Apr 15, 2019, at 12:35 PM, Sarah B <sbanks@encrypted.net> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 	I'd sent this first wGLC for draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest before Christmas, and while I gave it a longer period of time for comments, we've received none. So, I'd like to send it through WGLC again, ending Tuesday, April 30. Please share your comments and feedback here on the list.
> 
> Thanks
> Sarah
> 
> 
>> On Dec 7, 2018, at 9:59 AM, Sarah B <sbanks@encrypted.net <mailto:sbanks@encrypted.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi BMWG,
>> 	A quick clarification. The WGLC is for the Internet-Draft describing a benchmarking methodology for EVPN and PBB-EVPN, NOT BGP Basic Convergence. My apologies for the incorrect cut/paste. The draft link below is incorrect as well; data tracker no longer references full links with versions, so please use:
>> 
>> 	https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest>
>> 
>> 	And note that the current version as of this email/time of writing is -01.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Sarah
>> 
>>> On Dec 7, 2018, at 9:45 AM, Sarah B <sbanks@encrypted.net <mailto:sbanks@encrypted.net>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello BMWG,
>>> 	
>>> 	A Working Group Last Call (WGLC) period for the Internet-Draft describing BGP Basic convergence:
>>> 
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-01 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-01>
>>> 
>>> will be open for 6 weeks from today, and close on January 18, 2019. This is a bit longer of a WGLC window, but accommodates the end of year interruptions some members might experience.  Please weigh in on whether or not you feel that this Internet-Draft should be given to the Area Directors for consideration to progressing as an Informational RFC. Send your comments to this list. Your timely and prompt review and feedback is greatly appreciated!
>>> 
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Sarah/Al
>>> BMWG co-chairs
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bmwg mailing list
>>> bmwg@ietf.org <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> bmwg mailing list
>> bmwg@ietf.org <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> bmwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg