Re: [i2rs] Call for WG Adoption: draft-keyupdate-irs-bgp-usecases-02

Jon et al;

IMO we should have a single BGP use cases draft, at least initially.

Obviously draft merger, if required, is up to the respective authors
to negotiate.

cheers,
   -ed

cheers,
  -ed

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Jon Mitchell <jrmitche@puck.nether.net> wrote:
> On 28/07/13 20:15 -0400, Russ White wrote:
>>
>> > Please review draft-keyupdate-irs-bgp-usecases-02 and comment on
>> > whether it should be adopted by I2RS.  Detailed technical conversation is
>> also
>> > most welcome.
>>
>> I was under the impression that this was being merged with
>> draft-white-i2rs-use-case... Did we decide to carry all these use cases
>> forward separately? Or not to carry draft-white-i2rs-use-case forward?
>
> WG Chairs - is the intent to only have one BGP use cases draft?
>
> The current keyupdate draft has a large number of use cases and
> scenarios, mostly focused on SP network requirements.  Also, I note
> that most of it's use cases are centralized deployment and vendor
> neutral specification of configuration oriented in nature.  If we are
> going to only progress one document to cover BGP use cases, I would
> prefer it cover at least some use cases oriented towards manipulation
> of routing information to meet service differentiated routing such as
> those specified in your draft.
>
> At this time without knowing the authors intent (although one of the
> authors is on both documents?) and lack of comment on Joel's similar
> feedback earlier to the group, I'm can't support adoption of this
> draft if there is only an intent to progress one.  I'd be willing to
> support it if the authors are committed to integrating the white draft
> use cases (that don't already overlap such as VPN membership) into a
> merged document however.
>
> Jon
>
> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> i2rs@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs