Re: [Idr] Working group adoption call for draft-snijders-idr-deprecate-30-31-129

Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> Tue, 01 November 2016 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <job@ntt.net>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1F7412954E for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.432
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 eU7FbjAvT3P8 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.dllstx09.us.to.gin.ntt.net (mail3.dllstx09.us.to.gin.ntt.net [IPv6:2001:418:3ff:5::26]) (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 B92401294C1 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail3.dllstx09.us.to.gin.ntt.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <job@ntt.net>) id 1c1a2r-0000kN-Bq (job@us.ntt.net); Tue, 01 Nov 2016 14:28:09 +0000
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:28:07 +0100
From: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Message-ID: <20161101142807.GL1589@hanna.meerval.net>
References: <169A4C1A-302E-4FE0-841A-ADA63E812E1F@juniper.net> <20161101133240.GK1581@hanna.meerval.net> <CA+b+ERnh8MMDgCoviLDRvOxbOky=8pBtHC8Z-WCQr6xFF_ZzGQ@mail.gmail.com> <20161101141229.GK1589@hanna.meerval.net> <CA+b+ERmfW0vVXgqrxqNajZhJS3aDXD6kG7xzMFjsuk4bBNLvnQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERmfW0vVXgqrxqNajZhJS3aDXD6kG7xzMFjsuk4bBNLvnQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/-pJSk-7aZvKUoWevrW4WfBmHfJk>
Cc: IETF IDR Working Group <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Working group adoption call for draft-snijders-idr-deprecate-30-31-129
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 14:28:11 -0000

On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 03:17:30PM +0100, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > An implementor should not be rewarded with the possibility of
> > laziness after they squat on a codepoint.
> 
> +
> 
> > I argue that we cannot tolerate:
> 
> Ahh got it.
> 
> So the point of the document is *punishment* for early attempts to
> implement anything not to technically address the problem at hand. Thx for
> clarification ...

Am I to understand that you consider deployment problems not to be
technical problems?

BGP Path attribute codepoints are a global, shared resources. As
Internet community we have vested IANA with the authority to assign
resources from this pool. The social contract is that we abide by the
rules related to IETF and IANA. The same rules we write ourselves.

Kind regards,

Job