IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-06

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Sun, 15 April 2018 22:57 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25AC6127241; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 15:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
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 R3cFSgiBf0fM; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 15:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D76111250B8; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 15:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C35EB4E004F; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 15:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1523833045; bh=6OdgxPXg2V6XYCs/Rj7VHrfTTUKjDDn/m/SvrrOVFpg=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=B/a5S7U2UiN1gwFw/xmCrHbdXAy9qm7wCT2c3K3iIgkvezQWKzhihzJ9q+Rmsgsv4 K7voQraJh5VSw2A8CT/QlkhBeS5zQBM8DwOKCQQ2T1KvDCHcEEX57AHHqJRO76zy3v jRrW7dYdsSeXOuxWWNIVhIePD0JGQUkIX7V6FnfI=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [50.225.209.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B2C5A1C0B99; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 15:57:24 -0700 (PDT)
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, heasley <heas@shrubbery.net>, opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community.all@ietf.org>, li zhenqiang <li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com>
References: <152363066886.26321.3212300538180273898@ietfa.amsl.com> <HKXPR0601MB1799868866AF89F9699EAF28FCB10@HKXPR0601MB1799.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com> <20180415160956.GC66082@shrubbery.net> <ace47a71-0e9d-6a0d-ae37-1f4bc48ada0b@stevecrocker.com> <m2muy4nlz0.wl-randy@psg.com> <62aa2b28-05c6-37a3-d4cc-142395b28fe0@joelhalpern.com> <m2lgdonkso.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <b402b745-b883-e660-d411-292af2e750e5@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 18:57:23 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <m2lgdonkso.wl-randy@psg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/W_RpHsaRNnzUzaaqS88aGBd5Dz8>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-06
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 22:57:27 -0000

randy, noting that the IETF has trouble with the geo-tagging of its 
addresses does not seem to have ANYTHING to do with demonstrating how 
widely used the geo-communities are.

If you want to make that case, make it.  But don't bring up red herrings.

As you note, it is up to the WG, not to me, what to ask for regarding 
this draft.  And it is up to the ADs to judge whether this is a good 
thing to standardize.

Yours,
Joel

On 4/15/18 6:53 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Thus, again, you are not making a case for why the existing techniques
>> which are easier to implement and deploy are not sufficie3nt for the
>> problem.
> 
> correct.  i, and a couple of other ops, are making the case that
> communities are fairly widely used for tagging geo loc at varying
> granularities.  you are not required to agree.
> 
> and you can argue the rest with someone else.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email